id,title,description,date,dateprecision,releasedate,permalink,From,ListName,To
5490,"RE: GV Mailouts
","39","2007-02-13 19:14:12",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5490_re-gv-mailouts-.html","mirela.glass@stratfor.com","","hanna@stratfor.com,campbell@stratfor.com,Solomon.Foshko@stratfor.com","attach/1/1595_GV MASTER Client List 2-5-07.xls"
5940,"GV MASTER CLIENT LIST 15 March 07
","","2007-03-16 16:35:14",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5940_gv-master-client-list-15-march-07-.html","campbell@stratfor.com","","glass@stratfor.com,sagebiel@stratfor.com,gibbons@stratfor.com,Solomon.Foshko@stratfor.com","attach/1/1785_GV MASTER Client List 3-15-07.xls"
6067,"GV master client list 2/23
","","2007-02-23 21:06:33",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/6067_gv-master-client-list-2-23-.html","campbell@stratfor.com","","sagebiel@stratfor.com,gibbons@stratfor.com,hanna@stratfor.com,Solomon.Foshko@stratfor.com,mirela.glass@stratfor.com","attach/1/1831_GV MASTER Client List 2-23-07.xls"
14617,"STRATFOR - Security Reminder 
","","2009-09-02 21:31:23",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/14617_stratfor-security-reminder-.html","leticia.pursel@stratfor.com","","undisclosed-recipients:","attach/3/3250_STRATFOR Security Information and Instructions.pdf"
39826,"Two more surveys
","","2011-02-08 14:17:59",1,"2012-03-01 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/39826_two-more-surveys-.html","sf@feldhauslaw.com","","rbaker@stratfor.com,Solomon.Foshko@stratfor.com,john.gibbons@stratfor.com,scott.stewart@stratfor.com,exec@stratfor.com,ryan.sims@stratfor.com,anya.alfano@stratfor.com,jenna.colley@stratfor.com,zucha@stratfor.com,wright@stratfor.com,kevin.garry@stratfor.com,kyle.rhodes@stratfor.com,kelly.tryce@stratfor.com,matthew.solomon@stratfor.com,tim.duke@stratfor.com,megan.headley@stratfor.com,rob.bassetti@stratfor.com,grant.perry@stratfor.com,karen.hooper@stratfor.com,frank.ginac@stratfor.com","attach/6/6616_Greg Hudson Retired Textron STRATFOR Professional Survey Mexico.docx
attach/6/6617_Efurd Hunt Oil STRATFOR Professional Survey China and Mexico.docx"
49613,"Labor Day Review of Where We Are
","   THIS IS FOR INTERNAL STRATFOR USE ONLY. DO NOT SHARE THIS DOCUMENT OR
   DISCUSS IT OUTSIDE OF STRATFOR.

    

    

    

   I hope you've all had a great Labor Day Weekend. This Labor Day marks a
   turning point in Stratfor's history, and I wanted to share my thoughts
   with you and some plans. It used to be, not so long ago, that we were so
   small that information flowed to all hands by itself.  It is hard for me
   to recognize sometimes that this is no longer true, so I will provide an
   extensive review of where we are and what is coming.  Some of this will be
   old hat to some of you; some of this will be new.  This is an attempt to
   start getting everyone on the same page. 

    

   Historically, Stratfor was unique in a number of ways. First, we accepted
   no advertising. Second, we charged for our subscriptions. Finally, we were
   revenue driven. We build the company from our revenues.  This kept us
   independent, it kept us free to experiment-and at times fail, it kept us
   tight. We were reaching a point where we our revenues did not keep up with
   our needs and market opportunities.

    

   Shea Morenz provided us with two opportunities.  First, he made an
   investment in Stratfor designed to give us the capital needed to build our
   staff and our marketing.  Second, he proposed a new venture, StratCap,
   which would allow us to utilize the intelligence we were gathering about
   the world in a new but related venue-an investment fund. Where we had
   previously advised other hedge funds. We would now have our own, itself
   fully funded by Shea.  Shea invested over $2 million in Stratfor and more
   in StratCap. In return he took a seat on Stratfor's board and a minority
   position in Stratfor, whose control remains in Don's and my hands.  It was
   a good deal for Stratfor, a good deal for StratCap, and since the deal
   closed officially on August 1, we now have the task of doing what we all
   want-building Stratfor and StratCap.

    

   Our cash position is not spectacular by any means, but we have the
   resources to build the kind of company we want, when that investment is
   combined with our revenues.  With cash under control we need to address
   the next problem-people. We all are doing more than our share to keep
   things going.  In some ways that good but it can be overdone, and we are
   overdoing it throughout the company.  Our job now is to expand the team. 
   Money is one element of that, but relieving the pressure we are under in a
   way increases the pressure, because we have to recruit and train new
   people. So it gets harder before it gets easier, and that's the point we
   are at.

    

   Let's divide our departments into two groups.  There are those departments
   that must train their own people, particularly in intelligence beyond the
   normal training needed by new employees.  We do that because no one thinks
   of the world like Stratfor, and that means that we can't hire people from
   other organizations, or at least not without a major training programming,
   which in our experience lasts up to two years.  Then there are departments
   that don't have this burden and that can hire people readily from other
   organizations.  Both groups of departments must grow and train, but the
   burden of training is much heavier in the Intelligence departments that
   train their staff from the bottom up than on other departments.  It is
   important for everyone to understand this distinction.  It is not that
   people in Intelligence are more important or more valuable than those in
   other departments.  It just means they face different problems in growing
   and that if they don't grow, other things can't happen.

    

   Now let's consider the tasks ahead.  First and foremost-and always first
   and foremost-we must be the world's leading private intelligence
   organization (and one of the finest intelligence organizations, period)
   and we must sell our intelligence through publishing.  Our current staff
   has done an outstanding job, but they are thin and sometimes we are weak. 
   We must do better in economics, and we must make certain that no AOR
   depends on only one person. There are lots of things that are needed. 

    

   Second, we are committed to supporting StratCap, a private fund that will
   begin operations some time this coming spring. What StratCap will do is
   use our Stratfor's intelligence and analysis to trade in a range of
   geopolitical instruments, particularly government bonds, currency and the
   like in the world's emerging markets.  Shea Morenz initiated this idea and
   leads it.  At the root of StratCap is a simple idea: Stratfor should put
   its money where its mouth is.  It does not conflict with Stratfor, but is
   an extension of it.

    

   Do not think of StratCap as an outside organization.  It will be integral
   to Stratfor, in the sense that much of the intelligence we are developing
   is useful to Stratcap as well as Stratfor.  The organizational and legal
   distinctions are real and important, but StratCap is linked to Stratfor
   intellectually and contractually.  It will be useful to you if, for the
   sake of convenience, you think of it as another aspect of Stratfor and
   Shea as another executive in Stratfor. 

    

   Let me also add that it is our commitment that all our team will benefit
   if StratCap is successful through some mechanism to be defined. This isn't
   an attempt to get you to work harder for the same money.  But that
   discussion must wait until the legal and administrative relationships of
   StratCap and its relation to Stratfor are worked out and reviewed by
   something called \"compliance officers,\" people who make certain that we do
   not violate any regulations. 

    

   From that point of view, StratCap is something under construction.  You
   can see Shea Morenz hammering away building it in the corner office he
   took from Darryl. In the world of StratCap, corner offices are marketing
   tools.  This points to the fact that StratCap will be building its own
   staff and they come from a different world from Stratfor with a different
   culture.  That said, we have a great deal to learn from StratCap to
   strengthen Stratfor's understanding of economics and it has much to learn
   from us.  We are already working on mock portfolios and trades, testing
   our skills.  Kendra, Korena, Melissa, Jen, Peter, Meredith and myself are
   all involved in this along with Shea and Alfredo, a trader that makes us
   easy to understand compared to him. It's going pretty well in fact, but
   supporting StratCap will be a cultural and intellectual challenge.  It's
   important now to recognize that it is already here, growing and we will
   accommodate to it and it to us.

    

   I want to emphasize is that there is neither a legal, intellectual nor
   moral tension between Stratfor and StratCap.  We will continue to publish
   what we think is true.  StratCap is interested in our broad ideas but
   mostly in the obscure nuggets picked up by intelligence that are usually
   of little interest to our general readers.  My pledge to you and our
   readers is that our publication will remain untouched by StratCap-because
   they are merely different sides of the same coin, intelligence.

    

   We have also been asked to help the United States Marine Corps and other
   government intelligence organizations to teach them how Stratfor does what
   it does, and train them in becoming government Stratfors. We are beginning
   this project by preparing a three-year forecast for the Commandant of the
   Corps.  This is a double honor for us.  First, the professional
   intelligence community is acknowledging us as being the gold standard of
   intelligence.  Second, we are being asked to use our honest and unhedged
   views to support what is for Stratfor-an American company-its homeland. 
   Again, as with StratCap, there is no tension. We will tell the U.S.
   government precisely what we tell our readers and we think ourselves.  Our
   first lesson to the government is that intelligence organizations exist to
   make decision makers uncomfortable, not to make them feel better about
   their decisions. I didn't come this far to compromise on that. 

    

   Add to this that the fact that Turkish Chamber of Commerce (not its name
   but close enough; its name is TUSIAD) asked us to preside over their 40th
   anniversary celebration, and that the Turkish Foreign Minister and Energy
   Minister will speak at the event, and you can see both our global
   recognition and our commitment to speak the same words to every country.
   We can serve the world from the same platform.

    

   So think about it.  We have three triumphs.  First, our publication is now
   read by almost 300,000 people (counting our corporate accounts).  We are a
   major force around the world.  Second, Shea-a guy who has played with the
   big boys at Goldman Sachs, asked us to play in the majors with him. 
   Third, the USMC has asked for our help, and with them others in the
   defense community.  These are three validations of us that are precious to
   me.

    

   Obviously, there is no way in the world that we can do all these
   things-plus the endless little projects that we must do all the time-with
   the staff we have.  And given that we take two years to train new
   analysts, and all of this is on us now-we have an urgent problem.  We
   can't punt opportunities at hand and continue at our current size. Nor can
   we easily expand.  So we will therefore expand with difficulty.  There is
   no choice.  Our Analyst Development Program is the means where we train
   people and find new analysts as well as find some staff for publishing
   (watch officers, monitors, operations center and writers all under Jenna
   Colley). We will have the largest group of ADPs ever this fall, starting
   next week.  About 13 people at last count will be joining us.  This is a
   huge percentage of the number of analysts on staff. Ideally all will work
   out well and our crisis will be over.  That's unlikely but our crisis will
   be mitigated by January 1. Doing this will put a huge burden on
   Intelligence, who must do their work and also train these people, but
   there is no choice.  This is the year when we break out.  I promise to
   work side by side with the team in training and growing he organization. 
   I also promise that if we succeed, we will become one of the most
   significant and prestigious foreign policy publications in the world-and
   those that made it happen will be known.  I know there are questions about
   by-lines. You know my hesitation, but we will figure out together someway
   to make sure that the glory is shared.

    

   Intelligence is divided into three parts.  There is Strategic Intelligence
   (under Rodger assisted by Reva) that is organized geographically.  There
   is Tactical Intelligence (under Stick, assisted by Nate Hughes) that is
   organized thematically-organized crime, cyber-warfare, military,
   terrorism, security, financial flows, supply chain and so on.  There is
   then intelligence gathering, under Meredith, assisted by Jen Richmond that
   is building sources from around the world.  All of them must grow
   dramatically.  The first two will grow mostly out of the ADP pool. The
   latter will be done by extensive work in the field.  But it is the Writers
   Group that is making the most impressive evolution.  Under Jenna (and Tim
   French and Maverick) it has moved into the heart of intelligence, writing
   as well as editing.  Everyone should watch this team. They are pioneering
   things the world hasn't seen yet. Along with Watch Officers, monitors and
   the operations center, this unit is translating intelligence into product
   with increasing effectiveness.  It is now organizationally mature and
   ready to both grow and sustain the growth of Intelligence.

    

   This growth will put a tremendous strain on other departments. Leticia has
   done a tremendous job in Human Resources, but the job has grown much
   greater than she can possibly manage.  Just the process of getting visas
   for new ADPs is overwhelming, and at least half of these come from other
   countries.  We have selected an HR consulting firm to support her in the
   coming months and other solutions will be found to sustain this. HR will
   become more effective in the next months. In addition, we are retaining a
   law firm to create a policy for Stratfor on Foreign Corrupt Practices
   Act.  I don't plan to do the perp walk and I don't want anyone here doing
   it either.  We need some clear guidelines on the law and are getting them,
   particularly as we ramp our intelligence capability. Similarly finance has
   kept us all going and similarly it has to expand, although it is a shade
   less pressured than HR is.

    

   IT faces a huge challenge.  Traditional IT organizations focus on the
   development of new capabilities for a company and sustaining complex
   systems. At Stratfor, the focus must also be on sustaining basic systems
   like phones, email, configuring and fixing laptops and cell phones and so
   on-the basic tools that make our work possible and which are a particular
   challenge in a global company operating 24-7.  That gives our IT
   department a different shape and tempo than exists in other companies.
   With this class of ADPs, 24-7 will become very real.  IT is under pressure
   to maintain its focus on improving the web site and corporate systems but
   has a special and intense mission of supporting a growing, global company
   at the ground level, and the pressure is never going to be greater than
   now with all the new people coming on board in all departments. Creating
   an IT department that fits our peculiar needs will be Frank's challenge.

    

   I want to also point to two departments that are performing extremely
   well.  Customer Service at Stratfor is among the best in the business.  We
   daily get emails praising their work. John Gibbons has done an amazing job
   keeping this going.  More subscribers mean more customer service of
   course.

    

   Also to be mentioned is he on-line marketing team who has just done
   something very impressive. There is usually a slump in subscriptions after
   a Red Alert, and there was one, but in a matter of weeks they pitched in
   and turned it around with some strange and wonderful campaigns.  They have
   broken their forecast in spite of a pretty quiet world.  Its amazing the
   kind of ads that work!

    

   Let's turn to marketing and sales and the future.  Our readership is now
   about 5 percent of the Economist when we exclude corporate (not sure why
   we exclude corporate but that's what we do).  That means that we have
   probably saturated a good part of the early adopters market-the early
   adopters who love us and have built us-and put up with our weaknesses.
   It's kind of like people who supported Apple in its dark days, putting up
   with promising but not yet mature computers.  If you haven't read,
   \"Crossing the Chasm,\" a rare business book that is actually helpful,
   please take a look at it.  It will explain much of what we are trying to
   achieve in marketing.

    

   We have no choice but to grow.  If we stay this size someone larger, with
   deep pockets will notice the market we have created and come in after us. 
   We won't be able to compete.  The only protection is market share, to be
   so dominant a force in the market that no one challenges us and our own
   deep pockets.  For this we must grow revenue and that means readership. 
   The place we must grow is in the mainstream.  I don't mean by mainstream
   CNN. I mean readers who are interested in what we have, but aren't
   fanatics, groupies and wannabes.  These people have higher standards in
   production values, and less forgiveness for mistakes. They don't buy the
   mystique.  They buy the publication. That's where most of our customers
   are and where we have to go.

    

   Obviously this is one of the reasons we need more people.  It is also the
   reason we must deliver in new ways.  Grant Perry and his team are looking
   at ways to create a unique, Stratfor video culture. I see this myself as
   consisting of much longer and serious conversations among analysts
   moderated by an anchor, documentaries, briefings. Perhaps our Sitreps
   should all be delivered via video and audio (there is I think huge demand
   for audio products in cars, or so many people tell me).  All of this will
   evolve in unexpected directions under Grant, Colin, Brian, Andrew and
   others who will join them. This is part of our own evolution into the
   mainstream, on our own terms, with our own voice. What you see above, by
   the way, are simply my own ideas, not fully thought out.  Whatever Grant
   and his team produce will be uniquely Stratfor.

    

   Other than that we shall see.  What markets we will enter, and how we
   enter them is not yet known. We do know that the current Stratfor product,
   however enhanced, will be our only offering.  We will not be developing
   new products for markets. 

    

   We have hired a consultant, Mark Stacey, who will guide this process.  We
   will also be bringing in a consulting firm to do survey research and
   interviews to teach us more about our current readers, readers who won't
   buy us, and readers who would buy us if they had heard of us.  Our choice
   was between hiring staff to give us a plan or hiring consultants to give
   us a plan and then hiring permanent staff to execute it.  The latter is
   the safest-we avoid a staff without the skill to do what we need whom
   instead craft a plan to do what they already know.  In addition to this
   initiative, we are participating in the University of Texas Business
   School program where a team of graduate students will essentially parallel
   the work of our outside consultants, giving us a double check on the
   data. 

    

   The goal here is to have a marketing and sales plan in place for execution
   on January 1.  From where I sit, the biggest challenge we have is that too
   many people have never heard of us.  At a meeting I can encounter someone
   who has subscribed for years and next to him is a person in the same
   industry that has never heard of us.  It is difficult selling to people
   who have never heard of us.  So our challenge-before trying to sell to
   them-is to increase awareness of who we are.  This is called branding and
   it's different from selling.  It is the precursor.  We will start with
   branding in January. That means there will be marketing people around
   asking many questions in the coming months, frequently the same ones.
   Please work with all of them.  In the end, we will have a plan with a high
   likelihood of success.

    

   Parallel to all of this, the executives (without Don, Steve Feldhaus or
   myself-the board members) are going through a planning process of their
   own, coordinated by Frank Ginac.  Not being on it (and not wanting to be
   informed of what is going on as there should be yet another set of eyes on
   things other than mine) I can't tell you what they are doing.  However,
   the deal we have on this is that as CEO, I will proceed with implementing
   my own plans that I've outlined here, and will consider their proposals
   when I see them. If the decision point is past when they make their
   recommendation on a subject, the recommendation will not be considered. 
   If they come in with recommendations before decision points, their
   recommendations will be taken very seriously.  This allows the company to
   move forward and an alternative planning model to be brought on line when
   it is ready.

    

   The company has become too large and complex for any one person to know
   what is going on.  I am moving (with difficulty) from the role of an early
   entrepreneur, knowing everything going on and getting involved in it, to
   the CEO of a company at the inflexion point.   The inflexion point is the
   point all companies dream of and few achieve-when they start really taking
   off.  This is a great point and a dangerous one.  Unless the company
   changes the way it does things, inflexion aborts.  I am trying to change
   what I do.

    

   There are some things that have to remain my responsibility.  Building
   Intelligence and publishing and particularly training new staff are things
   that I should oversee.  Building the intelligence capabilities of the
   company along with Meredith is also my responsibility.  Creating new
   models to support Stratcap and helping to train Stratcap in the
   capabilities of Stratfor is mine. Overseeing our training of the Marine
   Corps is something I want to do.  Kendra will be my deputy for this, but
   this leaves a large load on me.

    

   Along with this, for better or worse, I am the public face of Stratfor. 
   My speeches and travels build the brand, create intelligence
   opportunities, and give me a clearer vision of how the world works.  I
   will be doing a lot of traveling to do these things, and I will combine
   them with the Geopolitical Journeys concept that seems to have hit a
   nerve.  During my travels I will be doing articles, videos and writing a
   book based on those journeys, on the world's borderlands.  Between that
   and making contacts for Stratfor and StratCap, I will be busy.

    

   Along with that load is going to be setting the broad direction of the
   company.  Through long and sometimes painful experience I have learned
   that ultimate responsibility can be delegated but not abandoned.  It's an
   old military principle that applies here. I have a vision for Stratfor and
   while I will delegate, I will not turn over responsibility because I
   can't.

    

   That means that we will need an evolving management structure.  I've asked
   Don who is formally President of Stratfor to join Darryl in both the day
   to day management of the company and in what we still call \"the business
   side.\"  One day we will simply be one company, but right now we are still
   two sides of one company.  Don and Darryl will now manage that side,
   implementing our plans there.  I will not disappear, but become
   intermittent on daily management but deeply focused on intelligence.

    

   One of the other things I must do is prepare a succession plan.  In some
   parts that are well developed, I already have that plan.  In other parts,
   we have to build an organization to have a succession plan.  But it is my
   intention that Stratfor survive me (no, I'm not feeling poorly and can
   still kick your ass).  I want to build this into the world's finest
   intelligence service, private and free to speak its mind.  I see this as
   the most lasting contribution I can make, and I am serious about making
   sure Stratfor goes on.

    

   We are all at the inflexion point where the level of effort temporarily
   soars until new resources are brought on line.  They couldn't have been
   staged in earlier because there weren't resources available.  But now they
   can't wait, because the moment will pass and perhaps never return.  For
   everything there is a \"now.\"  This is now.

    

   I ask only one specific thing of all of you. If you don't understanding
   anything here; if you want to learn more; if something worries you and
   your boss can't clear it up, come directly to me. I will be available
   until the last week of September when I go with others to Turkey.  Please,
   please, please, do not engage in a round of paranoia or speculation based
   on lack of data.  Just set a time to see me and let's discuss it. 
   StratFantasy (a new term) is I really believe the greatest danger to
   success that we have face.

    

   This is a long review, but many have said they'd like to know where we are
   and what we are doing.  This is about as comprehensive as I can get. There
   will be more such reports.  There are no short versions about where we are
   and what we are doing.

    

    

   OH YES-THIS IS FOR INTERNAL STRATFOR USE ONLY. DO NOT SHARE THIS DOCUMENT
   OR DISCUSS IT OUTSIDE OF STRATFOR.

    

   --

   George Friedman

   Founder and CEO

   STRATFOR

   221 West 6th Street

   Suite 400

   Austin, Texas 78701

    

   Phone: 512-744-4319

   Fax: 512-744-4334

    
","2011-09-05 21:55:16",1,"2012-02-27 12:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/49613_labor-day-review-of-where-we-are-.html","gfriedman@stratfor.com","mailto:stratforaustin@stratfor.com","allstratfor@stratfor.com",""
51091,"Anonymous vs. Zetas Amid Mexico's Cartel Violence
","    Stratfor logo                                                             
   Anonymous vs. Zetas Amid Mexico's Cartel Violence                          
                                                                              
    November 2, 2011                                                          
                                                                              
    Readers Comment on STRATFOR Reports                                       
                                                                              
    By Scott Stewart                                                          
                                                                              
    The online activist collective Anonymous posted a message on the          
    Internet on Oct. 31 saying it would continue its campaign against         
    Mexican criminal cartels and their government supporters despite the      
    risks.                                                                    
                                                                              
    The message urged inexperienced activists, who might not be practicing    
    proper online security measures, to abstain from participating. It also   
    urged individuals associated with Anonymous in Mexico not to conduct      
    physical pamphlet drops, participate in protests, wear or purchase Guy    
    Fawkes masks, or use Guy Fawkes imagery in their Internet or              
    physical-world activities. Guy Fawkes was a British Roman Catholic        
    conspirator involved in a plot to bomb the British Parliament on Nov. 5,  
    1605. The British celebrate the plot's failure as Guy Fawkes Day each     
    Nov. 5. In modern times, the day has come to have special meaning for     
    anarchists. Since 2006, the style of the Guy Fawkes mask used in the      
    movie \"V for Vendetta\" has become something of an anarchist icon in the   
    United Kingdom and elsewhere.                                             
                                                                              
    Related Video                                                             
      * [IMG] Dispatch: Anonymous' Online Tactics Against Mexican Cartels     
                                                                              
    It was no coincidence, then, that in an Oct. 6 video Anonymous activists  
    set Nov. 5 as the deadline for Los Zetas to release an Anonymous          
    associate allegedly kidnapped in Veracruz. The associate reportedly was   
    abducted during an Anonymous leaflet campaign called \"Operation           
    Paperstorm.\"                                                              
                                                                              
    The Oct. 31 message acknowledged that the operation against Los Zetas,    
    dubbed \"Operation Cartel,\" would be dangerous. It noted that some         
    members of the collective would form a group of trusted associates to     
    participate in a special task force to execute the operation. It asked    
    supporters to pass information pertaining to drug trafficking to the      
    Operation Cartel task force for publication on the Internet via a         
    software tool developed by Anonymous that permits the anonymous passing   
    of information.                                                           
                                                                              
    When discussing Anonymous, it is important to remember that Anonymous is  
    not a hierarchical organization, but rather a collective of activists.    
    Individuals who choose to associate themselves with the collective        
    frequently disagree over issues addressed by the collective and are free  
    to choose which actions to support and/or participate in.                 
                                                                              
    With Nov. 5 approaching, and at least some elements of Anonymous not      
    backing down on their threats to Los Zetas, we thought it would be        
    useful to provide some context to the present conflict between Anonymous  
    and Los Zetas and to address some of its potential implications.          
                                                                              
     Context                                                                  
                                                                              
    The Mexican port city of Veracruz has been the epicenter of this event.   
    Veracruz has been a busy place over the past few months in terms of       
    Mexico's cartel wars. The port serves as a critical transportation hub    
    for Los Zetas narcotics smuggling. Because of this, STRATFOR has          
    identified Veracruz as a bellwether for determining Los Zetas'            
    trajectory in the coming months.                                          
                                                                              
    In a major recent development in Veracruz, the Sinaloa cartel began an    
    offensive into the Zetas stronghold using the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva     
    Generacion (CJNG), which, under the name \"Matazetas\" (Spanish for \"Zeta   
    killers\"), conducted high-profile body dumps of more than 50 alleged      
    low-level Zetas operatives on Sept. 20 and Sept. 22. On Oct. 25, Mexican  
    marines arrested Carlos Arturo Pitalua-Carillo, also known as \"El Bam     
    Bam,\" who was the Zetas' plaza boss in Veracruz. The Zetas in Veracruz    
    thus are feeling pressure from both the Mexican government and the CJNG.  
                                                                              
    The Anonymous Internet collective entered this dynamic in August with     
    its activities in Veracruz. It is common knowledge that members of        
    local, state and federal governments in Mexico support various cartel     
    groups. In the state of Veracruz, it is generally believed that some      
    members of the state government support Los Zetas, the dominant cartel    
    there. In response to this corruption, some who have associated           
    themselves with Anonymous launched Operation Paperstorm. These activists  
    distributed leaflets throughout Veracruz denouncing the state government  
    for supporting Los Zetas. They conducted leaflet distributions Aug. 13,   
    Aug. 20 and Aug. 29. They also released videos on the Internet on Aug.    
    26 and Aug. 29 condemning the Veracruz state government.                  
                                                                              
    Activities outside Veracruz also played a part in setting the stage. On   
    Sept. 13, the bodies of two people who had been tortured and killed were  
    hung from a pedestrian overpass in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas state. Signs  
    left with the bodies said Los Zetas had killed the pair because they had  
    posted information pertaining to the Zetas on blogs that specialize in    
    reporting on the Mexican cartels. On Sept. 26, the decapitated body of    
    Marisol Macias Castaneda was found in a park in Nuevo Laredo. Macias,     
    who worked for a local newspaper, allegedly posted on cartel blogs using  
    the nickname \"Laredo Girl.\" A message found with her body said the Zetas  
    killed her due to her online activities.                                  
                                                                              
    Following the death of Laredo Girl, Anonymous claimed responsibility for  
    a distributed denial of service attack against the official website of    
    the state of Veracruz. Although her murder occurred outside of the        
    state, Anonymous said its attack on the Veracruz website was in response  
    to Laredo Girl's death. This indicates that activists understand that     
    Los Zetas are active in both areas and suggests that Veracruz             
    state-based activists are driving the Anonymous campaign against Los      
    Zetas.                                                                    
                                                                              
    Significantly, some individuals associated with Anonymous already were    
    unhappy with the state of Veracruz over its decision to prosecute two     
    individuals who had posted kidnapping reports on Twitter on Aug. 25 that  
    proved false. According to the reports, a group of children had been      
    abducted from a Veracruz school. The inaccurate reports allegedly caused  
    some two dozen traffic accidents as terrified parents rushed to the       
    school to check on their children. The so-called Twitter terrorists       
    initially were charged with offenses that could have carried a 30-year    
    sentence. Some associated with Anonymous, which has absolute freedom of   
    speech on the Internet as one of its foundational principles, took        
    umbrage at the prospect of such stiff penalties - especially given the    
    stark contrast with the impunity enjoyed by many cartel figures in        
    Mexico.                                                                   
                                                                              
    STRATFOR began to focus on the story following the Oct. 6 release of the  
    video in which Anonymous activists threatened to release information      
    about individuals cooperating with Los Zetas if the Zetas did not         
    release the Anonymous activist kidnapped during Operation Paperstorm. In  
    light of the approaching Nov. 5 deadline, we published an analysis of     
    the topic on Oct. 28; the topic subsequently received a great deal of     
    media coverage.                                                           
                                                                              
    This publicity has generated a very interesting response from Anonymous   
    that emphasizes that it is a collective, not an organization. Some        
    Anonymous activists began to back off the issue, erasing online user      
    accounts formerly associated with the campaign, suggesting the operation  
    against Los Zetas had been a hoax and claiming that no activist had been  
    kidnapped. Other activists suggested that the campaign was dangerous,     
    ill-advised and should be suspended. Still other activists became more    
    strident and determined in their posts, urging that the campaign          
    continue. As noted, Anonymous' collective nature means activists can      
    select the actions they participate in, including Operation Cartel. It    
    would only take one dedicated individual to continue the operation.       
                                                                              
    The will to continue was manifested Oct. 29 with the hacking of the       
    personal website of Gustavo Rosario Torres, the former attorney general   
    of the Mexican state of Tabasco. The site was defaced with a message      
    from Anonymous Mexico stating that Rosario is a Zeta. Rosario has long    
    been accused in the Mexican and international media of protecting Los     
    Zetas, and videos long have circulated on YouTube making the same         
    charge. The hacking of his website thus did not provide any startling     
    revelation; Anonymous will have to uncover and publish original and       
    timely information if it hopes to do much damage to Los Zetas.            
                                                                              
    The determination by some activists to continue the operation against     
    Los Zetas also was reflected in the tone of the Oct. 31 message. Some     
    activists associated with Anonymous clearly feel compelled to continue    
    with the campaign over what they have characterized as an outpouring of   
    public support in the wake of the media coverage. According to their      
    Oct. 31 video statement:                                                  
                                                                              
      \"We received many expressions of support and solidarity as well as the  
      voices of people crying for help. We must remember that we are on the   
      side of the people, and we cannot let down the people, especially in    
      critical moments like the one they currently live in.\"                  
                                                                              
    We therefore anticipate that some Anonymous activists will continue the   
    campaign. We also believe that Los Zetas will respond.                    
                                                                              
     Blowback                                                                 
                                                                              
    Mexico's various cartels long have used the Internet to trumpet their     
    triumphs on the battlefield and to taunt and even degrade their enemies.  
    The cartels have posted videos of the torture, execution and desecration  
    of the corpses of rivals. They also frequently monitor narcoblogs and     
    sometimes even post on them. As demonstrated by the September blogger     
    killings in Nuevo Laredo, Los Zetas appear to possess at least some       
    rudimentary capability to trace online activity to people in the          
    physical world. They are known to employ their own team of dedicated      
    cyber experts and to have sources within the Mexican government.          
                                                                              
    In addition to technical intelligence, the Zetas can use old-fashioned    
    human intelligence to track down their online enemies. People sometimes   
    discuss their online identities with family and friends, and such         
    information can be overheard and passed to Los Zetas in return for        
    money. This danger was recognized in the Oct. 31 video from Anonymous     
    that urges participants in their campaign not to discuss their            
    activities with anyone.                                                   
                                                                              
    In past Anonymous actions, like the December 2010 attack against PayPal   
    after the WikiLeaks scandal broke, the U.S. and British governments       
    arrested numerous individuals associated with Anonymous who allegedly     
    participated in the attacks. In June 2011, Turkey arrested dozens of      
    activists associated with Anonymous actions conducted against the         
    Turkish government in response to its plan to establish a national        
    Internet-filtering system. This indicates that some activists associated  
    with Anonymous are not nearly as anonymous as they would like to be.      
    Every action on the Internet leaves some sort of trail, making it very    
    difficult to be truly anonymous.                                          
                                                                              
    Like other Mexican cartels, Los Zetas do not take affronts lightly. Even  
    if Anonymous cannot provide information that damages Los Zetas smuggling  
    operations, the very fact that the collective has decided publicly to     
    challenge Los Zetas will result in some sort of response. The big         
    question is whether the Zetas possess the capability to trace the         
    organizers of the Anonymous action?                                       
                                                                              
    One challenge with tracking an entity such as Anonymous is that it is     
    intentionally amorphous. It is also as transnational as the Internet,     
    and it would be unsurprising if many of those chosen to participate in    
    the operation against Los Zetas are located in the United Sates, Europe   
    and other areas that are outside the Zetas' immediate reach.              
                                                                              
    The amorphous nature of Anonymous can also cut the other way, however.    
    If Los Zetas abduct and execute random patrons at an Internet cafe,       
    behead them and place Guy Fawkes masks on their heads, it will be very    
    difficult to prove that they were not associated with Anonymous. Los      
    Zetas also could execute random people and claim they had provided        
    Anonymous with information in order to intimidate people from actually    
    cooperating with Anonymous. As Anonymous noted in its Oct. 31 video,      
    this is dangerous business indeed.                                        
                                                                              
     The Big Picture                                                          
                                                                              
    How the Mexican public reacts to the Anonymous operation must be          
    watched. The criminal cartels and their violence have deeply affected     
    many people in Mexico's middle and upper classes. STRATFOR talks to many  
    people in Mexico who fear that they or a family member will be            
    kidnapped. In many communities, especially places like Ciudad Juarez,     
    Torreon, Monterrey and Veracruz, businessmen find themselves in a         
    terrible bind. They face ever-increasing extortion demands from the       
    cartels while their business revenues dwindle because the violence        
    associated with those same cartels has frightened people into not going   
    out. This is forcing many small businesses to close. It also is creating  
    a great deal of frustration and resentment.                               
                                                                              
    At the same time, Mexico has become one of the most dangerous countries   
    in the world for journalists, and many media organizations practice       
    heavy self-censorship to protect themselves. In the wake of the           
    September blogger killings, some of the narcoblogs, like Blog del Narco,  
    have exhibited strong signs of self-censorship inspired by fear. As a     
    result, many Mexicans believe the mainstream media are not of any real    
    assistance in the face of cartel violence.                                
                                                                              
    Mexican citizens also are frustrated with their government, which, as     
    noted, is well-known for corruption. This sentiment is feeding            
    Anonymous' original campaign in Veracruz. This frustration even has led   
    some people to begin discussing the creation of vigilante groups to       
    fight the cartels - though this has been attempted before in Mexico. As   
    we saw in the case of La Familia Michoacana, which began as such a        
    vigilante group, vigilantism frequently does not end well.                
                                                                              
    This is where Anonymous may fit in. With Mexican citizens unable to rely  
    on their government, the media or even armed vigilante groups for         
    assistance, they may embrace Anonymous, coming to view its form of        
    cybervigilantism as an outlet for their frustration. If Anonymous is      
    perceived as a safe way to pass information pertaining to cartel          
    activities, we may see people from all over the country begin to share    
    intelligence. Such human intelligence could very well prove to be far     
    more damaging to the cartels than any information Anonymous activists     
    can dredge up electronically. As this operation is becoming more widely   
    publicized, the pool of people outside Mexico who might wish to           
    participate will likely grow. The number of people inside Mexico who      
    wish to provide information might grow as well.                           
                                                                              
    Anonymous has taken on many powerful entities in the past, such as major  
    transnational corporations and governments. But the repercussions from    
    participating in such operations were never as grave for online           
    activists as they are in this case. Being identified and detained by      
    Scotland Yard or the FBI is a far different situation than being          
    identified and detained by Los Zetas.                                     
                                                                              
    Give us your thoughts                          Read comments on           
    on this report                                 other reports              
                                                                              
    For Publication                                Reader Comments            
                                                                              
    Not For Publication                                                       
                                                                              
    Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by   
    prominently displaying the following sentence at the beginning or end of  
    the report, including the hyperlink to STRATFOR:                          
                                                                              
    \"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR\"                  
    Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us                                
    (c) Copyright 2011 Stratfor. All rights reserved.                         
","2011-11-03 15:27:01",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/51091_anonymous-vs-zetas-amid-mexico-s-cartel-violence-.html","noreply@stratfor.com","mailto:stratforaustin@stratfor.com","allstratfor@stratfor.com",""
52179,"Dispatch: Mainland China's \"Occupy Wall Street\" Reaction
","    Stratfor logo                                                             
   Dispatch: Mainland China's \"Occupy Wall Street\" Reaction                   
                                                                              
    October 19, 2011 | 2044 GMT                                               
    Click on image below to watch video:                                      
    [IMG]                                                                     
                                                                              
    China Director Jennifer Richmond explains why the \"Occupy Wall Street\"    
    movement failed to gain traction in mainland China.                       
                                                                              
       Editor*s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition      
       technology. Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete        
       accuracy.                                                              
                                                                              
    Related Links                                                             
      * China Political Memo: Wenzhou Backs Away from the `Wenzhou Model'     
      * The Effects of Chinese Economic Development on Illicit Trade          
      * China Political Memo: Governmental Reforms for Economic Problems?     
                                                                              
    The \"Occupy Wall Street\" movement has gone global and there have even     
    been attempts to capitalize on this movement in various Chinese cities.   
    The \"Occupy China\" movement, however, has failed to gain traction on the  
    mainland.                                                                 
                                                                              
    We really didn't expect to see this movement transfer to mainland China;  
    however, given the Jasmine protests earlier this year, there were many    
    who were waiting to see whether or not this movement could be             
    rejuvenated by the global call to action. The global Occupy movement      
    lacks a nucleus or leadership. Despite a common theme of corporate        
    greed, there is very little direction on how to proceed and, under these  
    circumstances, we have seen no contagion effect in mainland China.        
                                                                              
    However, the Tiananmen protests in 1989 also started with very little     
    leadership or direction, and many Chinese activists that I've spoken      
    with feel that all that is needed is a spark to ignite a fire. After      
    all, there are plenty of protests localized daily in China, revolving     
    around issues such as land grabs, the environment and even corruption.    
                                                                              
    The Jasmine Movement provided a spark for organized action in China;      
    however, it quickly fizzled under an aggressive government response. The  
    Occupy China movement hasn't even gotten that far. While it is not        
    unforeseeable for a small movement to gain momentum in China, the         
    problem with both the Jasmine and the Occupy movements are that neither   
    were home-grown.                                                          
                                                                              
    Although the Jasmine movement was spearheaded by Chinese, it was done so  
    from overseas. The Occupy movement had supporters and organizers within   
    China, but the concept was foreign-generated.                             
                                                                              
    Moreover, the Chinese government and media has actually acknowledged the  
    Occupy movement in the U.S. and in the EU, taking the opportunity to      
    point out the failures of Wall Street and capitalism, while at the same   
    time, censoring any indication of an Occupy China movement. Also, many    
    Chinese do not have access to the social Internet sites that have helped  
    to ignite these movements in Western countries, namely Facebook. And      
    those that do, find this information quickly scrubbed off of similar      
    Chinese sites.                                                            
                                                                              
    Ultimately, the Chinese, even those that want change, are wary of         
    foreign influences. Anything emanating from outside of the state will be  
    used by the state to highlight foreign interference. That said the        
    domestic wealth gap and its ensuing tensions could generate a homegrown   
    movement that would threaten Beijing much more so than any Occupy Wall    
    Street movement could muster.                                             
                                                                              
    Click for more videos                                                     
                                                                              
    Give us your thoughts                          Read comments on           
    on this report                                 other reports              
                                                                              
    For Publication                                Reader Comments            
                                                                              
    Not For Publication                                                       
                                                                              
    This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with          
    attribution to www.stratfor.com                                           
    Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us                                
    (c) Copyright 2011 Stratfor. All rights reserved.                         
","2011-10-19 22:54:05",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/52179_dispatch-mainland-china-s-occupy-wall-street-reaction-.html","noreply@stratfor.com","mailto:stratforaustin@stratfor.com","allstratfor@stratfor.com",""
52322,"[Social] REPORT - Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in luxury
","   Quick jump on the bandwagon!  It's not cool unless you're protesting...or
   a hipster....or angry for some reason that may have nothing to do with how
   much you make....by the way South Park is mocking Occupy Wall Street
   tonight on Comedy Central
   http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-045625415.html

     NYC arrest records: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in luxury

   Many *Occupy Wall Street* protesters arrested in New York City*occupy*
   more luxurious homes than their *99 percent* rhetoric might suggest,
   a Daily Caller investigation has found.

   For each of the 984 Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested in New York
   City between September 18 and October 15, police collected and filed an
   information sheet recording the arrestee*s name, age, sex, criminal
   charge, home address and * in most cases * race. The Daily Caller has
   obtained all of this information from a source in the New York City
   government.

   Among addresses for which information is available, single-family homes
   listed on those police intake forms have a median value of $305,000 * a
   far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied housing
   units in the United States.

   Some of the homes where *Occupy* arrestees reside, viewed through Google
   Maps and the Multiple Listing Service real estate database, are the
   definition of opulence.

   Using county assessors and online resources such as Zillow.com, TheDC
   estimated property values and rents for 87 percent of the homes and 59
   percent of the apartments listed in the arrest records.

   Even in the nation*s currently depressed housing market, at least 95 of
   the protesters* residences are worth approximately $500,000 or
   more. (RELATED SLIDESHOW: Opulent homes of the *99 percent*)

   The median monthly rent for those living in apartments whose information
   is readily available is $1,850.

   Of the 984 protesters arrested, at least 797 are white. The median age of
   *Occupy* protesters taken into custody is 27 years.

   Ten demonstrators were arrested more than once. Most of the arrests, it
   should be noted, were for nonviolent offenses.

   The arrest intake documents show that arrestees came to New York from all
   over the country but particularly from the Northeast.

   Criminal charges ranged from *loitering while wearing a mask* and *failure
   to move along* to *violent behavior* and other more serious charges such
   as *assault 2 [second-degree assault] caus[ing] physical injury to police
   [or] firemen.* There was also one charge of *sex abuse 3 [third-degree].*
   Hundreds were arrested on October 1 for obstructing traffic on the
   Brooklyn Bridge.

   While it would not be fair to conclude that the arrested protesters are
   fully representative of a movement that is not completely understood, this
   information forms the most complete snapshot yet of the demonstrations*
   more militant participants.

   It also reinforces the persistent critique of protesters as entitled,
   upper-class agitators with few legitimate grievances.

   London*s Daily Mail newspaper, for example, recently highlighted signs of
   wealth among the throngs in Zuccotti Park.

   *Sleeping beside the hardcore activists are increasing numbers of wealthy
   students turning up to make the most of the party atmosphere, drugs and
   free food,* reporters Paul Bentley and Micela McLucas wrote in October.
   *While they dress down to blend in, the youngsters* privileged backgrounds
   are revealed by glimpses of expensive gadgetry or the absent minded
   mention of their private schools during heated political debates.*

   *I think that it*s accurate to say that our supporters come from all
   backgrounds,* Patrick Bruner, the operator of OccupyWallStreet.org, a
   website dedicated to help organize and spread information about the
   protests, told TheDC when asked about participants from wealthier
   backgrounds. *That said, a (non-random) survey on our site revealed that
   our visitors literally are the 99% in regards to economic realities.*

   The national median home value of $185,400 reflects U.S. Census statistics
   from the years 2005 through 2009, the last year data were available.

   TheDC was able to estimate home values and apartment rents for 659 of the
   972 residences. Thirteen were in university dormitories; six were post
   office boxes; four were addresses in foreign countries. Many addresses
   proved to be nonexistent, and a few were not provided to police.

   TheDC has elected not to publish personally identifying information.

   BENJAMIN SLEDGE
   Senior Graphic Designer
   STRATFOR
   221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
   (ph) +1 512.744.4320 | (fx) +1 512.744 4105
   www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-02 16:09:00",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/52322_-social-report-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-live-in.html","ben.sledge@stratfor.com","mailto:social@stratfor.com","social@stratfor.com",""
52429,"Re: [Social] REPORT - Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in
	luxury
","   To clarify the point more
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVHpnixj88
   --
   BENJAMIN SLEDGE
   Senior Graphic Designer
   STRATFOR
   221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
   (ph) +1 512.744.4320 | (fx) +1 512.744 4105
   www.STRATFOR.com
   On Nov 2, 2011, at 10:09 AM, Ben Sledge wrote:

     Quick jump on the bandwagon!  It's not cool unless you're
     protesting...or a hipster....or angry for some reason that may have
     nothing to do with how much you make....by the way South Park is mocking
     Occupy Wall Street tonight on Comedy Central
     http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-045625415.html

     NYC arrest records: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in luxury

     Many *Occupy Wall Street* protesters arrested in New York City*occupy*
     more luxurious homes than their *99 percent* rhetoric might suggest,
     a Daily Caller investigation has found.

     For each of the 984 Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested in New York
     City between September 18 and October 15, police collected and filed an
     information sheet recording the arrestee*s name, age, sex, criminal
     charge, home address and * in most cases * race. The Daily Caller has
     obtained all of this information from a source in the New York City
     government.

     Among addresses for which information is available, single-family homes
     listed on those police intake forms have a median value of $305,000 * a
     far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied
     housing units in the United States.

     Some of the homes where *Occupy* arrestees reside, viewed through Google
     Maps and the Multiple Listing Service real estate database, are the
     definition of opulence.

     Using county assessors and online resources such as Zillow.com, TheDC
     estimated property values and rents for 87 percent of the homes and 59
     percent of the apartments listed in the arrest records.

     Even in the nation*s currently depressed housing market, at least 95 of
     the protesters* residences are worth approximately $500,000 or
     more. (RELATED SLIDESHOW: Opulent homes of the *99 percent*)

     The median monthly rent for those living in apartments whose information
     is readily available is $1,850.

     Of the 984 protesters arrested, at least 797 are white. The median age
     of *Occupy* protesters taken into custody is 27 years.

     Ten demonstrators were arrested more than once. Most of the arrests, it
     should be noted, were for nonviolent offenses.

     The arrest intake documents show that arrestees came to New York from
     all over the country but particularly from the Northeast.

     Criminal charges ranged from *loitering while wearing a mask* and
     *failure to move along* to *violent behavior* and other more serious
     charges such as *assault 2 [second-degree assault] caus[ing] physical
     injury to police [or] firemen.* There was also one charge of *sex abuse
     3 [third-degree].* Hundreds were arrested on October 1 for obstructing
     traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge.

     While it would not be fair to conclude that the arrested protesters are
     fully representative of a movement that is not completely understood,
     this information forms the most complete snapshot yet of the
     demonstrations* more militant participants.

     It also reinforces the persistent critique of protesters as entitled,
     upper-class agitators with few legitimate grievances.

     London*s Daily Mail newspaper, for example, recently highlighted signs
     of wealth among the throngs in Zuccotti Park.

     *Sleeping beside the hardcore activists are increasing numbers of
     wealthy students turning up to make the most of the party atmosphere,
     drugs and free food,* reporters Paul Bentley and Micela McLucas wrote in
     October. *While they dress down to blend in, the youngsters* privileged
     backgrounds are revealed by glimpses of expensive gadgetry or the absent
     minded mention of their private schools during heated political
     debates.*

     *I think that it*s accurate to say that our supporters come from all
     backgrounds,* Patrick Bruner, the operator of OccupyWallStreet.org, a
     website dedicated to help organize and spread information about the
     protests, told TheDC when asked about participants from wealthier
     backgrounds. *That said, a (non-random) survey on our site revealed that
     our visitors literally are the 99% in regards to economic realities.*

     The national median home value of $185,400 reflects U.S. Census
     statistics from the years 2005 through 2009, the last year data were
     available.

     TheDC was able to estimate home values and apartment rents for 659 of
     the 972 residences. Thirteen were in university dormitories; six were
     post office boxes; four were addresses in foreign countries. Many
     addresses proved to be nonexistent, and a few were not provided to
     police.

     TheDC has elected not to publish personally identifying information.

     BENJAMIN SLEDGE
     Senior Graphic Designer
     STRATFOR
     221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
     (ph) +1 512.744.4320 | (fx) +1 512.744 4105
     www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-02 16:10:12",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/52429_re-social-report-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-live-in.html","ben.sledge@stratfor.com","mailto:social@stratfor.com","social@stratfor.com",""
64027,"INSIGHT - Russia/Israel/Georgia/Mexico - defense deals and swaps
","   Please see insight message further below for more context
   PUBLICATION: No, but ask first
   ATTRIBUTION: N/A
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: MX301 - Former Mexican cop, Latam military analyst,
   writes for Jane's
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY:  A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1
   SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION: 
   SPECIAL HANDLING: n/a
   Met with my Mexican source/friend again today and dude is getting shadier
   by the day. We followed up on our past discussion on Russia compromising
   the Israeli-made Georgian UAVs prior to the August war. 
   Here is what else I learned
   One of the source's friends/colleagues -- formerly military i think but
   now does private defense deals on the side (it's Mexico) contacted him in
   July (prior to the Georgia war). Apparently the Georgians had contacted
   this guy because they were frantically looking for a replacement for the
   Israeli UAVs that were compromised. Not only that, but they asked for
   10,000 rounds of ammo (source was talking fast, so i dunno if this is
   exactly what he said) but something like 6.22 mm rounds, 'NATO standard'
   because the Chinese ammo that the Georgians had only went 400 yards. Also
   on the list was a request for 2 bell helicopters. The Georgians were
   pretty much looking for anyone who would sell to them and were willing to
   pay top dollar (shows how frantic the Georgians were in July knowing that
   war is coming). My source put the other guy in touch with a private
   defense contractor to make the deal but ended up getting screwed over with
   the commission.
   Here is the most interesting part:
   I inquired more about the compromised Israeli UAVs. What he explained was
   that Israel and Russia made a swap -- Israel gave Russia the 'data link'
   code for those specific UAVs; in return, Russia gave Israel the codes for
   Iran's Tor-M1s.
   I asked about the S-300 (source tracks a lot of defense deals for Jane's).
   He doesn't think the Russians will give it to the Iranians. Besides, he
   said... Israel and Turkey have been collaborating very closely on the
   S-300s. He explain how about 8 years ago when Russia sold S-300s to Greece
   to base in Crete (which were supposed to protect Cyprus), Russia delivered
   those with a carrier so that Turkey wouldn't try to sink them. (things got
   a bit noisy so i may have misheard some of this). The gist of what he said
   is that Turkey has been cracking the S-300 since the Crete sale and has
   been sharing intel on the S-300 with the Israelis to ensure that they
   retain an advantage over Iran should Iran get them from the Russians.
   as far as the Georgian UAVs go, they were interested in the Mexican ones
   because the Mexican UAVs had something (forget the name. it was
   auto-something' that basically backs up teh UAV system in case someone
   hacks into it and immediately returns the UAV to base.
   Previous insight:
   PUBLICATION: ask me first
   ATTRIBUTION: N/A
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: MX301 - Former Mexican cop, Latam military analyst,
   writes for Jane's
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY:  A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1
   SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION: 
   SPECIAL HANDLING: n/a
   I was getting a drink with my Mexican cop friend after class and we
   started talking about Mexican UAVs. He has been advising the government
   for the past couple years on the need for more UAV use for the military
   against the cartels. I read one of his policy memos on paper that was
   pretty technobabbly, but if you guys need any info on this, he's the guy.
    The army and the navy have UAV capability, though the army doesn't really
   take them all that seriously. Recently (like a year ago) the federalistas
   (fed police) started using them too.
   Ok, here's the really juicy part:
   There is a private Mexican company called Idra that the government funded
   to make UAVs. They are actually pretty high standard according to him and
   beat out the Israeli UAVs in testing. My friend was consulting Idra at the
   time and so he was privy to a lot of deals that were on the table. This is
   the story --
   The Mexican government is now paying some $25m (? can get the #s later)
   for UAVs from Israel. Idra is basically like WTF, but the reason is
   basically corruption. There is a deal b/w the Mexican interior ministry
   and the Israelis where they're getting a hefty kickback.
   This is the interesting part, though.
   Idra had an offer to sell UAVs to Georgia (this was happening during and
   after the war). The reason Georgia needed the UAVs is because the UAVs
   they had bought from Israel had been compromised by the Russians. The
   Russians got the data link for the UAV (there is some suspicion that the
   Israelis after the war may have given this to them. Remember all the
   intense mtgs b/w the Israelis and the Russians where the Russians got the
   Israelis to back off of defense deals to Georgia in return for Russia
   backing off Iran?). Anyway, the Georgians gave Idra a picture of one of
   their crashed UAVs. The source explained though that if the UAV were
   targeted, it would have been blown to pieces pretty much (it's like the
   size of a car basically). But the picture he saw showed the UAV intact. He
   inquired and basically what happened was that the Russians acquired the
   data link to hack into the system and force the UAV into the ground. I
   think they may have crashed another one too.
   So, since the Georgian UAVs were compromised, they then tried to sell them
   to the Azerbaijanis. I dont know if that deal went through. Idra backed
   off the deal to Georgia because they were advised that it would raise a
   lot of political complications between Mexico and Russia.
   I asked about other deals between Idra and foreign countries. Chavez was
   the first one who wanted to buy their UAVs. The source advised them to not
   have their first foreign sale be to someone like Chavez for political
   reasons.
   Can get follow-up info if anyone is interested. I just thought this was a
   fun little story.
","2009-02-26 04:37:21",1,"2012-02-27 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/64027_insight-russia-israel-georgia-mexico-defense-deals-and-swaps.html","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com","","secure@stratfor.com",""
72358,"Re: DISCUSSION - US/MALAYSIA - evolving strategic cooperation
","   One point I forgot to mention. While Malaysia is not yet ready to be put
   in a situation where it has to 'choose' between the US and China, and will
   avoid and delay doing this for a long time, ultimately its strategic
   priority lies with the most powerful navy, and that means the United
   States.

   Malaysia has a large ethnic Chinese community that is economically
   powerful and increasingly a critical voting block with the power to weaken
   the ruling BN coalition -- this is conceivably a vulnerability in some
   future time. Malaysia has experienced Chinese-authored destablization in
   the past, in the form of Communist insurgency. We are nowhere near a
   situation where China would revert to Cold War behavior like this in
   supporting proxies to destabilize Malaysia. But my point in bringing this
   up is that ultimately Malaysia will side with the US if the situation
   comes to a standoff, because only the US (and its allies like Australia
   and Japan) can guarantee Malaysia's security and economic stability in its
   current form.

   The current question is how to maintain strong relations with both the US
   and China and avoid not move too fast or too far in a particular course of
   action that causes a negative reverberation on the other relationship.
   Since the US-China are in a 'thaw' period right now, this isn't as much of
   a problem, but as we've discussed the thaw can go away pretty soon, and
   China's maritime advances are gaining more attention.

   On 6/8/11 5:39 AM, Matt Gertken wrote:

     \"Okay I've finished looking into the recent US-Malaysia developments.
     The main story is simply that the US has said it is willing to expand
     military engagement, and has left the offer open to Malaysia to expand
     it.

     US-Malaysia defense cooperation began in the 1960s, was boosted in the
     1980s, in response to Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia, and then boosted
     again after 9/11. The low point in the relationship was the Asian
     financial crisis and Mahathir's run-in with the IMF, but ultimately
     Malaysia has always insisted on heavy state control of the economy and
     this hasn't hindered defense relationship.  The relationship was often
     conducted discretely to avoid Malaysian domestic hang-ups, but after
     9/11 it became more open, and Mahathir used the war on terrorism as a
     pretext to crush Islamist-leaning political opponents.

     The US has set Indonesia as the cornerstone of ASEAN re-engagement, and
     reached out to others like Vietnam, but it is also reaching out to
     Malaysia as a natural economic partner and one of its examples of a
     \"good\" Muslim state. Moreover, Malaysia is embedded in the Southeast
     Asian security dynamic. It is a key state given its position on the
     Strait, and it has has claims in the South China Sea territorial
     disputes, where the US is attempting to insinuate itself to prevent
     China from succeeding in dividing and isolating its ASEAN rivals.

     Obama, who stresses his Pacific heritage, has already held a bilateral
     visit with Najib once before at the US Nuclear Security Summit, and
     Gates and Clinton both visited in 2010, prior to Gates recent bilateral
     with Najib at the recent Shangri-La conference. The US is entering the
     East Asia Summit this year (along with Russia), which Malaysia
     originated as a non-US influenced Asian discussion group; Malaysia is
     joining the US-led Trans Pacific Partnership negotiations for a large
     new regional trade framework. On the security front, Malaysia has hailed
     the US joining the ASEAN Defense Ministers meetings.

     Malaysia in 2011 participated in the US/Thai Cobra Gold exercises,
     rather than being a mere observer. It recently sent a medical team to
     assist in Afghanistan. It remains a major counter-terrorism partner, and
     a counter-piracy player in the Strait, and has expanded authorized
     nonproliferation efforts by means of the 2010 Strategic Trade Act. Najib
     called for a new regional rapid-response team to deal with natural
     disasters, during his keynote address at Shangri-La.

     Both sides are emphasizing that the main focal points of cooperation are
     counter-terrorism, Malaysian cooperation in Afghanistan, Malaysian
     enforcement of non-proliferation rules, counter-piracy, and natural
     disasters. Yet the US is clearly laying the groundwork for something
     bigger than this.

     However, what is important is that the US wants cooperation with
     Malaysia to focus more on precisely the threats posed by China's rising
     maritime power. What the US is really offering is to expand its
     cooperation with Malaysia to cover maritime domain security and
     awareness. PACOM Chief Willard's comments in Kuala Lumpur highlight what
     the US has in mind: \"Domain security -- particularly maritime security
     -- is the quintessential common cause among nations. Not only for their
     navies but for the abundance of agencies that contribute to security ...
     coast guards or their equivalent, with law enforcement duties, in
     particular, can challenge illegal encroachment and criminal activities
     that navies may not. Attainment of maritime domain awareness --
     essential to security operations -- requires whole-of-government
     collaboration within and across our nations, across governments,
     judiciary, commerce, transportation, treasury and foreign affairs
     agencies all play key roles in assuring maritime security.\" 

     Malaysia is not currently in this frame of mind. Najib's recent comments
     emphasized the wishful thinking that cooperation with the US and China
     are not exclusive, and multilateralism is the only way forward --
     clearly Malaysia is trying to walk a the fine line and avoid 'cold war'
     scenarios between US and China.

     As with most of the US' re-engagement efforts in ASEAN, the concrete
     progress may be slow to develop.Gates' meeting with Malaysian PM Najib
     is a meeting of one lame duck and a potential lame duck. If Najib can't
     win big in upcoming general elections -- by far the primary concern in
     Malaysia at the moment -- then his party may dump him. And Malaysian
     foreign policy is essentially top heavy, driven by the PM, as a legacy
     of the Mahathir era, so there may be a limit to anything the two sides
     should decide upon, until Malaysia's political situation is more
     certain.

     It is also important to notice that China has been rapidly expanding its
     ties with Malaysia too. Hu Jintao visited in 2010, for the first time
     for a Chinese president in 20 years, and big business projects are under
     way, including Chinese companies building the new Kuala Lumpur mass
     transit railway.

     But what we can see here is that the US is trying to nudge Malaysia into
     a new era of defense cooperation, one that is focused on maritime
     security in a way that seeks to bind China into existing structures, and
     prepare for contingencies if this fails.

     ***

     NOTES on Malaysia-US military cooperation

      

      

      

     Office of Defense Cooperation - http://malaysia.usembassy.gov/odc.html

     .       ODC manages and supports the Malaysian Armed Forces (MAF)
     procurement of U.S. defense equipment, services and training.

     .       The F/A-18 \"Hornet\" case is the largest and most active FMS
     program.

     .       ODC coordinates and supports approximately 14 - 16 bi-lateral
     and multi-lateral exercises with the Malaysian Armed Forces and the
     Royal Malaysian Police each year in order to promote interoperability
     and cooperation.  Examples of such exercises are:  Cooperation Afloat
     Readiness and Training (CARAT), Cope Taufan, Keris Strike, Air Warrior,
     and Joint Combined Exchange Training.

     Conferences

     Each year, ODC sends about seventy members of the Ministry of Defense
     and Malaysian Armed Forces to participate in U.S. hosted or co-hosted
     conferences and seminars.  These events increase interoperability and
     cooperation between the U.S., Malaysia, and other countries in the
     region.

     .       ODC also supports specialized regional events and seminars in
     areas such as pandemic influenza preparedness and response;
     noncommissioned officer engagement, and maritime security.

     U.S. MILITARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING

     ODC manages the International Military Education and Training (IMET)
     program which provides U.S. training on a grant basis to students from
     Malaysia.  Each year, ODC sends approximately fifty Malaysian military
     personnel for training under IMET. ODC also manages the Foreign Military
     Sales Training Program, Counter Terrorism Fellowship Program (CTFP), and
     Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS) courses.

     .        

      

      

     Asia-Pacific Security Cooperation: National Interests and Regional
     Order. Ed. by See Seng Tan and Amitav Acharya. \"Malaysia Defense and
     Security Cooperation: Coming out of the closet\" J. N. Mak. pp127-153
       http://books.google.com/books?id=BTeRGyeAqbwC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=%22United+States%22+AND+%22Malaysia%22+AND+%22military+cooperation%22+OR+%22defense+cooperation%22+OR+%22security+cooperation%22&source=bl&ots=EFpUilh0L_&sig=_fFDv3tCrBgTio2fsv3GqY-mInk&hl=en&ei=wVvuTfwiwdvRAbSJjd4D&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22United%20States%22%20AND%20%22Malaysia%22%20AND%20%22military%20cooperation%22%20OR%20%22defense%20cooperation%22%20OR%20%22security%20cooperation%22&f=false

     .       1958 - US-Malay pact for US to supply military equipment

     .       Malaysia didn't want to join SEATO, didn't want to become US
     puppet (substitute for British colonial master), and was fighting ethnic
     Chinese domestic communist insurgency, so needed cooperative elements in
     Chinese community

     .       Malaysia did join AMDA , virtually inherited from British, but
     had to be very careful not to reveal full extent. Be discrete about
     American cooperation.

     .       Opposition to economic neoliberalism from the West meant that
     Malay had to be careful about cooperating with the West on defense

     .       1969 race riots -

     .       Mahathir and other Malay nationalists emerge declaring less
     accommodation toward minorities

     .       1970 - Malaysia begins state-driven development model. `Look
     east' to Japan and ROK for examples. Create Malay capitalist class.

     .       Malaysian acquisition of military assistance from the US/West
     grows

     .       Malay coop with Australia under FPDA; the only problems emerge
     when Oz seems ready to act as regional policeman under the US, such as
     when John Howard said Oz could target terrorists outside its borders,
     drawing Mahathir's ire.

     .       1981 Mahathir takes over. Worries about American values and
     neoliberalism. But

     .       ASEAN defense cooperation lacking - differences, and all low
     tech (therefore nothing to gain)

     .       Malaysia tried to encourage the US not to abandon the region
     after the Vietnam war

     .       Malay coop with Thai and Indonesia on border regions to fight
     communist insurgency

     .       Malay reorient toward conventional land threat when Vietnam
     invaded Cambodia early 1980s.

     .       US assistance increased after the Viet invasion of Cambodia, and
     after Soviet fleet buildup at Cam Ranh Bay. Greater funds, and
     International Military Education Training (IMET). In 1980 Malaysai buys
     88 Skyhawk Jets, and in 1984 the relationship was `upgraded and
     institutionalized' by a bilateral training and consultative group being
     formed.

     .       After 1991 Vietnam withdrawal, Malaysia began to focus more on
     maritime and Spratly claims

     .       Malaysia sought to coop with US and Oz, despite Mahathir's
     opposition to US agenda

     .       In 2002 Najib gave a paper
     http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/us-malaysia-defense-cooperation
      where he talked about how the US-Malaysia defense coop was an `untold
     story' and well kept secret. Talked about frequent US ship visits; US
     airforce training with Royal Malaysia counterparts, mock battles; US
     Navy SEALS do training in Malay two times per year; US Army does field
     exercises with Malaysian army, whose jungle warfare capabilities are
     renowned and they are nicknamed `whispering death'; and the IMET program
     benefiting lots of defense personnel. US has never turned down a Malay
     request for weapons. 9/11 supposedly galvanized relations like never
     before. US is allowed overlfights, `excellent access' to Malay intel,
     and Malay forces protect US ships in the strait, and teaching other
     ASEAN states how to spot and freeze terrorist assets

     .       Terrorists wanted to topple `secular' regimes and incumbent
     regimes, Malaysia was concerned about Jemaah Islamiyah and Kumpulan
     Mujahidin Malaysia (KMM). after 9/11 Malay made public much of the
     cooperation with the US that had begun much earlier but was kept secret.

     .       Mahathir could crackdown on Muslim political opponents (like
     PAS) by means of the anti-terrorist push post-9/11

      

      

     SOURCES

     http://www.pacom.mil/web/site_pages/media/news.shtml

      

      

      

     SOME RECENT EVENTS

      

     10th Shangri-La Dialogue - IISS Asia Security Summit - Najib gave
     opening address, and Gates and Najib had a direct talk

      

      

     Keynote Address - Dato' Sri Najib Tun Razak

                                        

                                        

                       The 10th IISS Asia Security Summit

                                        

                            The Shangri-La Dialogue

                                        

                                   Singapore 

                              Friday 03 June 2011

                                        

                                Keynote Address

                           Dato' Sri Najib Tun Razak
                            Prime Minister, Malaysia

                                        

                                  As Prepared

                                        

                                        

                                        

     Salam-alaikum and a very good evening.  Mr Teo Chee Hean Acting Prime
     Minister, honourable ministers, defence chiefs, distinguished
     participants, ladies and gentlemen, let me first thank Dr John Chipman
     for his kind words of introduction, and for inviting me to speak with
     you this evening.  I am delighted to be here in Singapore, to be joined
     by so many distinguished government representatives, policy makers,
     business people and opinion leaders - and of course to mark ten years of
     fruitful and productive dialogue here, at the Shangri-La Hotel.  The
     first time I was here, back in 2002, I was Defence Minister.  A lot has
     changed since then.  For one thing, I am now Prime Minister, which I am
     afraid means I get to come between you and your dinner.  

     Ladies and gentlemen, in June 1963 President Kennedy, delivering the
     commencement address at the American University in Washington, spoke at
     length about peace in a thermonuclear age.  He said, `What kind of peace
     do I mean?  What kind of peace do I seek?  Not a Pax Americana enforced
     on the world by American weapons of war, not the peace of the grave or
     the security of the slave.  I am talking about genuine peace, the kind
     of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables
     men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their
     children - not merely peace for Americans, but peace for all men and
     women - not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.'  

     The thing that strikes me most about his words is that, rather than
     succumbing to an expedient vision of world peace, he chose not to
     compromise and to continue to strive for a better world.  Three decades
     later, the end of the Cold War, rather than producing the peace dividend
     we all expected, has instead given rise to a new set of complex,
     multi-dimensional security challenges.  The elimination of Osama bin
     Laden and now the capture of Ratko Mladic serve as a reminder of the
     security threats we face, albeit threats of a different kind to those
     faced by the world back in the 1960s.

     Today, we cannot and we must not return to the old bipolarity of that
     Cold War, an era of stalemate and stand-off that crippled the world for
     far too long.  We have no choice but to rise to these new challenges
     together.  In the 21st century our economies are so integrated and
     interdependent, and production processes are so dispersed across
     borders, that it no longer makes sense for global powers to go to war;
     they simply have too much to lose.  National interests are becoming more
     and more about collective interests, and our task now is to reflect this
     in a multilateralism that is both hard-headedly realistic and
     progressive.  Because the way ahead, I have no doubt, must be built on
     co-operation and not on confrontation; for that, every country, every
     leader here today, must play their part.  

     The cynics thought that Asia and the West could never truly come
     together as a cohesive whole, that we had too little in common, that
     life in Surabaya was simply too far removed from life in San Diego.  The
     last ten years have proved them wrong.  Yes, we come from many cultures
     and we speak many languages but, as US Defence Secretary Robert Gates -
     and I wish him well in his retirement - said in this room last year, the
     Pacific Ocean is not a barrier that divides us but a bridge that unites
     us.

     The United States has long been a modernising and moderating force
     within our region, supporting democratic institutions, improving
     governance and fostering respect for human rights.  Barack Obama has
     described himself as America's first Pacific president, and Secretary of
     State Hillary Clinton has spoken of the need to find strong partners
     here.  Such warm words are welcome, but they are just the latest in a
     long exchange of ideas and views between the United States and Asia.  I
     am pleased that America, and of course Russia, will be taking part in
     the East Asia Summit for the first time later this year.

     Next month will see the 40th anniversary of Henry Kissinger's secret
     mission to China ahead of President Nixon's historic visit in 1972. 
     Coming in the midst of the Cold War, Nixon's visit shocked many in the
     United States.  How could the fervently anti-communist leader of the
     Western world possibly sit down with his ideological adversary?  The
     answer, of course, is that the United States saw in China the potential
     to become a counterweight to the Soviet bloc, but this new alliance went
     much further than that.  Nixon's visit was not just about the United
     States opening itself up to China; it was about China opening itself up
     to the United States.  It is a relationship that has benefited both
     countries ever since, but such productive dialogue can only take place
     if there is an openness to engagement on both sides.

     It would of course be quite wrong to suggest that China's actions in the
     early 1970s were somehow uncharacteristic, that they represented a
     change in stance and attitude towards the wider world.  Since the time
     of the Ming Dynasty, China has been a great and growing power, and
     today, as the focus of the world's economy has shifted from West to
     East, from the nations of the Atlantic Ocean to those of the Pacific,
     China has grown still more assertive, opening up and engaging with its
     neighbours and competitors.  

     We should see this as a cause for optimism rather than concern.  China
     may be expanding - it has enjoyed spectacular economic growth of 9-10% a
     year for the last 20 years - but it is not going to dominate the globe
     in the way the biggest economic forces of the past once did.  In the
     late 1940s, the United States not only had the largest GDP of any
     nation, it also accounted for more than half of the world's wealth. 
     When, as predicted, Chain becomes the world's largest economy in around
     30 years, it is likely to account for less than a quarter of global
     GDP.  Wealth will be much more evenly spread, with the United States,
     Europe and Japan acting as a balance to Beijing's rapid growth.

     Nor should China's growing military capacity cause us undue alarm. 
     Despite rapid increases in Chinese military expenditure, the United
     States will continue to be by far the pre-eminent military power and by
     far the biggest spender.  Minister Liang Guanglie may oversee the
     world's largest standing army, but in Malaysia we know well that China's
     first commitment is to peace.  

     Six hundred years ago the great Chinese admiral Zheng He visited
     Malacca.  He brought with him 300 ships and something like 35,000 troops
     - an armada that could easily have conquered the region, if his heart
     had been set on that course.  Zheng had come not to invade by force of
     arms but to extend the hand of friendship.  One hundred years later the
     Portuguese came with 800 troops and only around a dozen ships and
     conquered Malacca for the next 130 years, but we do not like to talk
     about that.

     Today, China is our partner.  The United States is also our partner.
      And this evening I say clearly to our friends from America, from China,
     Russia, India and beyond: we in ASEAN share your values and your
     aspirations, and we urge you to work with us.  It is not about taking
     sides.  We must replace the old bilateralism of the Cold War not with a
     new bilateralism, but a multilateralism that can rise to the task ahead.

     Because war between nations is no longer the greatest threat scenario in
     the region or the world. Instead, we face a new set of asymmetric and
     non-traditional security challenges: human trafficking, terrorism, drug
     smuggling and nuclear proliferation cannot be resolved in isolation or
     through the old security structures of the past.

     We in ASEAN know this, which is why we have in place a range of security
     structures, not just one.  Intra-Asian trade is now valued at around
     $1 trillion.  Linking our economies together in this way is in itself a
     means of actively reducing the possibility of conflicts.  Trade and
     investment are the important building blocks towards peace.  After all,
     why would you wage war on your biggest market?

     As our economies come together, so do our people.  New communication
     technologies and the advent of low-cost airlines are breaking down
     borders, allowing more people to integrate with their near and
     not-so-near neighbours.  

     In my country, Malaysia, integrating many cultures, tongues and
     religions is simply what we do.  It is what we have done for more than
     half a century since independence.  Out of that unity comes stability,
     security and peace.  My own heritage lies with an ethnic group called
     the Bugis.  Our family tree has many branches, wrapped around the
     islands and peninsulas of Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore - a
     geographical spread that came about in part because of our passion for
     seafaring and exploration, but also because of the way we conducted
     ourselves once we arrived in a new land.  Throughout history races and
     peoples have sought out new territory through conquest and oppression,
     but the Bugis have always taken a different approach -falsafah tiga
     hujung, or the philosophy of the `three tips'.  The first is hujung
     lidah.  The second is hujung anu tu, which I will not translate.  The
     third ishujung keris.  It is one that I believe still resonates today.
     Physical conflict - invasion, violence and war - was always the most
     desperate last resort.  Long before taking up arms, the Bugis would
     first use diplomacy - that's the hujung lidah.  They would talk to their
     neighbours, get to know them, try to come to a mutually acceptable
     conclusion.  The next step involved integration, strengthening bonds
     between the Bugis and the other parties through friendship and family. 
     Sometimes this would literally involve marriage.  That is not quite what
     I am proposing today; for one thing, I already have a lovely wife.  In
     our globalised economy, the financial relationships between countries
     bind us together almost as closely as wedding vows.  

     Today, for example, the same waters that my ancestors crossed a thousand
     years ago, and that Zheng sailed back in the 15th century, are some of
     the most important trade routes in the world.  Every year almost 100,000
     ships travel down the Straits of Malacca and more than a quarter of the
     world's traded goods pass through the South China Sea.  If
     transportation links are the lifeblood of international trade, South
     East Asia has become its beating heart and we have a collective
     responsibility to ensure businesses can operate here in safety and
     security.  That is why Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia are already
     working trilaterally, through the `Eye in the Sky' initiative, to combat
     the menace of piracy in the Straits of Malacca - an effective response
     in comparison to the escalating situation in the Horn of Africa.

     The areas where we need to work together are not confined to trade. 
     Post 11 September we are facing a new and uncharted security landscape
     with multiple threat scenarios.  We must meet those challenges
     comprehensively, with resolve and decisiveness, and with no option off
     the table.  We need to start with every nation playing their part in
     securing their own internal borders.  This must be followed by a
     willingness to work together on a bilateral and multilateral basis.

     Malaysia has and will continue to play its role as a responsible global
     citizen, and we have shown and will continue to show that our commitment
     is not merely rhetorical but is backed by action.  In working to secure
     world peace, Malaysian peacekeepers have served under the umbrella of
     both the United Nations and NATO.  From Somalia to the Balkans,
     Malaysian security personnel have made the ultimate sacrifice in the
     service of global stability.  

     Ours is not simply a peacekeeping role.  Malaysia contributes in many
     ways, sometimes rather unexpected ways - for example in Afghanistan,
     where we are playing our part in the country's rehabilitation by sending
     much-needed female Muslim doctors.  In the fight against global
     terrorism, we have also been an active player, pro-active in ensuring
     that Malaysia becomes neither a hotbed nor a transit point for terrorist
     operations.  And either actively or through the sharing of intelligence
     with regional security apparatus, we have helped with the apprehension
     or elimination of terrorists like Mas Selamat, Dr Azahari and Noordin
     Mat Top.
     In the southern Philippines, Malaysia has put in an international
     monitoring team and acted as an intermediary by hosting peace talks
     between the Philippines government and the Moro Islamic Liberation
     Front.  This has at times been a sensitive issue for us, but we are
     committed to taking the lead in the interests of wider stability and
     peace.  In southern Thailand, we have signalled our willingness to help
     with the socio-economic development of the four provinces with
     substantial Muslim populations.  Bilaterally, we are working with the
     United States to combat crimes like drug trafficking, terrorism and
     fraud; and with Australia, to tackle the issue of asylum seekers and to
     foster stability right across our region.
     Multilaterally, we are working to enforce the UN Security Council
     resolution on the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
     through our new Strategic Trade Act.  I am determined that we will play
     our part as a responsible member of the international and regional
     community and that, in the spirit of the 1995 declaration, we will
     together make ASEAN a nuclear-free zone.

     We simply cannot allow our important work together to be derailed by
     tensions or destabilised by disagreements and disputes.  With Thailand
     and Cambodia currently at the Hague, our region knows only too well how
     deadly such clashes can be.  In this case, there is of course the good
     and bad news.  The bad news is that 16 people lost their lives.  The
     good news is that both sides are now talking.  We all have high hopes
     for an imminent resolution.

     Of course difficulties between neighbours will flare up from time to
     time but, in our region, significant progress has in fact been made in
     settling some of these disputes over the years.   China and Russia were
     able to resolve their land border, at 4,300 kilometres the longest in
     the world, in 2008.  Vietnam and China completed their land border
     demarcation in that same year.
     In Malaysia we have long tried to negotiate our border disputes in a
     spirit of consultation and negotiations.  With Thailand, for example, we
     created a joint development area, with both countries agreeing to share
     mineral resources.  With Singapore, a peaceful and diplomatic appeal to
     the International Court of Justice resulted in an amicable ruling that
     was accepted by both sides.  With Brunei, a solution was found on the
     basis of a mutually beneficial formula, with a production-sharing
     agreement put into place.
     I hope that all border disputes can be resolved in that same spirit of
     mutual respect and co-operation.  I am also optimistic that ASEAN and
     China will soon be able to agree on a more binding code of conduct to
     replace the 2002 Declaration of Conduct in the South China Sea.  The
     overlapping claims in the South China Sea, involving six parties, are
     particularly complex, but they have generally been managed with
     remarkable restraint.  We must never allow our disagreement on this
     issue to escalate beyond the diplomatic realm.  All parties must remain
     steadfast in their resolve to find a peaceful resolution to this
     dispute.  Yes, while I remain fully committed to the common ASEAN
     position in terms of our engagement with China on the South China Sea, I
     am equally determined to ensure our bilateral relationship remains
     unaffected and, in fact, continues to go from strength to strength.  
     This is the way forward: dialogue, engagement, consensus.  Those are the
     values enshrined in the declaration of the Zone of Peace, Freedom and
     Neutrality signed by the founding ASEAN member states in 1971, when my
     father was Prime Minister of Malaysia, and in the Treaty of Amity and
     Co-operation since then.

     Let me now share with you my thoughts on six practical principles that
     might underpin the notion of effective co-operation in our region. 
     Firstly, it is extremely important for such multi-state engagement to
     fully recognise the role of each member state, rich or poor, small or
     big.  Secondly, we must appreciate that every member country is
     different in terms of history, culture and its economic position. 
     Thirdly, confidence-building measures need to be put in place to foster
     deeper dialogue and understanding between partners.  Fourthly, we need a
     web of different forms of security architecture, not only regional and
     with the co-operation of extra-regional powers but also within the
     context of bilateral arrangements.  Fifthly, there need to be
     institutional relationships - relationships not just at the highest
     levels, but also between our different institutions.  

     A significant degree of regional and global co-operation already exists,
     and building upon this will draw the major players closer towards each
     other.  Indeed, regional processes such as the ASEAN Regional Forum and
     the ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting Plus 8 are already actively
     exploring co-operation in disaster relief and humanitarian assistance. 
     I would like to call today for the establishment of a regional
     humanitarian body, a new rapid-response team with the ability to respond
     to disaster when it strikes.  These activities are especially relevant
     because they foster direct interaction between the defence and security
     agencies of different countries, going beyond formal declarations and
     high-level dialogues to coordinated operations on the ground.  

     Establishing the ARF was one of the most far-sighted and bold
     initiatives our regional community has taken to strengthen peace and
     foster stability - inclusive in nature and embracing countries of all
     political hues.  We have been a little slow, though, in making progress
     on our agenda of building confidence, security contacts and of
     preventive diplomacy.  It is clear that the ARF, complemented by the
     ADMM+8, has to make greater haste and show stronger political resolve on
     all sides, but in building new alliances and forging new security
     contacts we should not forget the old ones, like the Fire Power Defence
     Arrangement.

     As I said earlier, we should not be surprised when we encounter
     problems, which brings me to my sixth and final point: that far from
     letting these difficulties knock us off course, we must build on all we
     have achieved together to not only manage such disputes, but to resolve
     them.  Now more than ever, we need to focus on the bigger picture and
     not become blinkered by our own concerns.

     In Islam we have a concept, wasatiyyah, which means moderation or
     `justly balanced'.  It is this spirit of moderation that has made
     Malaysia the country it is today, and that I believe will now be the key
     to overcoming the challenges we face together as a region.  That is why,
     at the United Nations last year, I called for a new global movement of
     the moderates that would see government, business and religious leaders
     around the world face down extremism wherever it is found.  Just as you
     cannot make the world a better place by passing a law proclaiming that
     it will be better, you cannot rid the world of extreme views simply by
     making them illegal.  I have no doubt we can best foster tolerance and
     understanding not by silencing the voice of hatred, but by making the
     voice of reason louder and louder.  

     Since our discussions and deliberations 10 years ago, this forum has
     always been a lot more than a talking shop.  It has been about fostering
     clear-headed, practical security and defence co-operation.  I believe
     that the movement of the moderates can be a similarly constructive
     expression of our common values.  The great challenge before us as
     nations is how to secure the blessings of liberty and prosperity for our
     people in an uncertain world.  How do we chart a better future for our
     children?  How do we advance the welfare of our people and solve the
     great problems of our times?  The answers lie in coming together and in
     collectively bringing our will and resources to bear.  

     As responsible leaders, we cannot and should not squander the
     opportunity before us to help build a new world order, where a just and
     equitable peace predicated on the rule of law is the norm rather than
     the exception.  We know that governments that do not practice good
     governance are existing on borrowed time.  We must ensure peace and
     stability at all levels - national, regional and global.  To achieve
     that goal, let us continue to engage each other in a constant dialogue
     for, in the words of Winston Churchill, `jaw-jaw is better than
     war-war'.  I thank you.
     http://www.iiss.org/conferences/the-shangri-la-dialogue/shangri-la-dialogue-2011/speeches/keynote-address/dato-sri-najib-tun-raza/

      

      

     Military ties between the United States and Malaysia remain strong and
     will continue to strengthen, said US Pacific Command commander Admiral
     Robert F. Willard.

     .       Willard said he discussed matters of mutual interest with
     Malaysian Armed Forces chief Jeneral Tan Sri Azizan Ariffin.

     .       \"We explored new ways in which armed forces of the two countries
     can help contribute to security in the Asia Pacific region,\" he told
     reporters after delivering a talk entitled \"Securing the Maritime
     Commons: The Role of Regional Navies\" at a hotel here yesterday.

     .       \"I think it's important that Malaysia decides how and where the
     military co-operation expands and improves,\" said Willard who was here
     [Kuala Lumpur] as a speaker at the 25th Asia-Pacific Roundtable
     yesterday.

     .       Willard said there were many areas that the Malaysian armed
     forces could contribute regionally beyond maritime security

     .       He pointed out that Malaysia's participation in the
     multinational \"Cobra Gold\" exercise in Thailand at an increased level as
     a positive move.

      

     Speech to 25th Asia-Pacific Roundtable; \"Securing the Maritime Commons:
     The Role of Regional Navies\"

     By Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander, U.S. Pacific Command 
     Kuala Lumpur Malaysia

     .       
     CONSIDER THE ASEAN REGIONAL FORUM, THAT TODAY REGULARLY LEADS 
     MULTI-NATIONAL SECURITY EXERCISES TO \"PROMOTE PEACE AND SECURITY THROUGH
     DIALOGUE AND COOPERATION IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC\" EVOLUTIONS THAT INVOLVE A
     HOST OF REGIONAL MILITARIES, AND NAVIES, AND THOUSANDS OF PARTICIPANTS
     INCLUDING U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND.

     .        AND IN RECENT YEARS, HAS FOCUSSED ON THE VERY TOPIC WE'RE GOING
     TO DISCUSS TODAY SECURITY IN THE MARITIME COMMONS.

     .        AS A TESTAMENT TO THE IMPORTANCE THE U.S. HAS ATTACHED TO
     ASEAN, WE NOW HAVE A DEDICATED AMBASSADOR IN DAVID CARDEN ... WHO WE
     HOPE WILL BE EMBRACED BY THE ASEAN COMMUNITY

     .        [Straight of Malacca's importance. ] AND YET, IT'S JUST ONE OF
     A DOZEN STRATEGIC STRAITS IN THE ASIA PACIFIC. ALL IMPORTANT FOR THE SEA
     LANES THAT PASS THROUGH THEM ... ALL OF WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUGHT OVER
     THROUGHOUT HISTORY. ALL OF WHICH MUST BE MAINTAINED SECURE IF THE
     COMMERCE UPON WHICH WE DEPEND IS TO MOVE GOODS, UNIMPEDED.

      

     .        I MIGHT OFFER THAT INCREASINGLY IN THE 21ST CENTURY, SECURITY
     IN ALL DOMAINS - LAND, AIR, SPACE, CYBERSPACE AND MARITIME - WILL BE
     NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE FREEDOMS OF ACTION THAT ARE FUNDAMENTAL TO
     GLOBAL PROSPERITY IN THIS ERA.

      

     .        DOMAIN SECURITY - PARTICULARLY MARITIME SECURITY - IS THE
     QUINTESSENTIAL COMMON CAUSE  AMONG NATIONS.

     .        NOT ONLY FOR THEIR NAVIES BUT, FOR THE ABUNDANCE OF AGENCIES
     THAT CONTRIBUTE TO SECURITY, ACROSS A BROAD RANGE OF CHALLENGES.

     .        COAST GUARDS OR THEIR EQUIVALENT, WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT DUTIES,
     IN PARTICULAR, CAN CHALLENGE ILLEGAL ENCROACHMENT AND CRIMINAL
     ACTIVITIES THAT NAVIES MAY NOT.

     .        ATTAINMENT OF MARITIME DOMAIN AWARENESS - ESSENTIAL TO SECURITY
     OPERATIONS - REQUIRES WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT COLLABORATION BOTH WITHIN AND
     ACROSS OUR NATIONS.

     .        ACROSS GOVERNMENTS, JUDICIARY, COMMERCE, TRANSPORTATION,
     TREASURY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS AGENCIES ALL PLAY KEY ROLES IN ASSURING
     MARITIME SECURITY.

     .       
     AND LAST, BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST, TO DISPUTES EITHER ON, OR PROXIMATE
     TO THE MARITIME SEA LANES THAT COULD OTHERWISE FLASH INTO CONFLICT AND
     DISRUPT THE PEACEFUL FLOWS OF COMMERCE THAT MUST BE SECURED.

     .        ASSOCIATIONS SUCH AS ASEAN PLAY A PIVOTAL ROLE IN THIS.

     .        ASEAN AND OTHER MULTI-NATION FORUMS SUCH AS SHANGRI-LA DIALOGUE
     PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR NATIONS TO FRAME THE CHALLENGES, SEEK COMMON
     AND EFFECTIVE APPROACHES TO THEM, AND CONDUCT RESPECTFUL DISCOURSE WHEN
     NATIONS DISAGREE.

     .       
     I MENTIONED THE SUCCESSFUL MULTI-NATIONAL EVENTS THE ASEAN REGIONAL
     FORUM REGULARLY LEADS.

     .        IN MARCH THE FORUM LED A DISASTER RESPONSE EXERCISE IN
     INDONESIA, WHICH WAS THE SECOND IN A SERIES THAT BEGAN IN THE
     PHILIPPINES IN 2009.

     .        THIS YEAR'S EVENT STRENGTHENED CONFIDENCE AND INCREASED
     INTEROPERABILITY AMONG THE CIVIL AND MILITARY AGENCIES AND ADVANCED
     REGIONAL CAPACITIES TO PROVIDE COORDINATED AND EFFECTIVE DISASTER
     RESPONSE.

     .        MULTI-NATIONAL PLANNING AND TRAINING EVENTS LIKE THIS ARE
     REMINDERS THAT THE NATIONS OF THE ASIA-PACIFIC ASSUME  A SECURE AND
     ACCESSIBLE MARITIME DOMAIN TO EFFECTIVELY PREPARE FOR, OR RESPOND TO
     NATURAL DISASTERS.

     .        AS WAS DEMONSTRATED EARLIER IN THE YEAR IN JAPAN, FOLLOWING THE
     CONFLUENCE OF EARTHQUAKES, TSUNAMI, AND NUCLEAR ACCIDENTS.

     .        THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE - BY A HUNDRED NATIONS AND ALMOST
     TWO DOZEN MILITARIES - CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THE IMPORTANCE OF
     COOPERATION AND INTEROPERABILITY.

     .        IN CLOSING, I'D ASK YOU TO IMAGINE AN ASIA-PACIFIC WHERE
     SECURITY PREVAILS ACROSS THE GLOBAL COMMONS AND WHERE ACCESS IS
     UNINHIBITED.

     .        A REGION WHERE THERE ARE NO TERRITORIAL DISPUTES OR, IF ONE
     ARISES, IT IS RESOLVED PEACEFULLY AND EQUITABLY WITHIN AN AGREED UPON
     FRAMEWORK.

     .      
     http://www.pacom.mil/web/Site_Pages/Media/News_2011/05/31-Speech-by-adm_willard-25thAsia-pacific-roundtable.shtml

      

      

     Obama admin warm-up to Malaysia --
     http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs/apb081.pdf

     .       Obama as `pacific president' and reaching out to Muslims

     .       US stepping up engagement with ASEAN (treaty of amity/coop, plus
     sending ambassador), joining ADMM+ , and EAS

     .       Obama-Najib bilateral at Nuclear Security Summit

     .       Clinton and Gates visit - 2010

     o    Met with Dep PM Muhyiddin Yassin

     o    Spoke as Islamic center to talk about Malaysia being a leader of
     Islamic modernity

     o    Expand cooperation on education, medicine, new tech

     o    Complained about Anwar

     .       Malaysia send 40-member medical team to Afghanistan at request
     of Afghan govt.

     .       Malaysia passes Strategic Trade Act 2010 - halt transshipment of
     WMD-related goods

     .       Malaysia joins TPP talks

      

     TIMELINE OF RECENT COOPERATION

     May 2011

     USS Avenger Builds Ties with Malaysian Navy -
     http://www.pacom.mil/web/Site_Pages/Media/News_2011/05/16-USSAvenger-builds-ties-w_malaysian_navy.shtml

     .       Malaysian officers Lt. Lim Kim Tat and Lt. Mohd Hafiz bin Atan
     had the opportunity to observe Avenger Sailors in a sea and anchor
     evolution, observe an integrated training drill, learn about mine
     sweeping operations and see a traditional U.S. Navy \"crossing the line\"
     ceremony.

     .       Ensign Garth Thomas gave the two Malaysian naval officers a tour
     of the ship's mine sweeping capabilities and discussed with Tat and Atan
     how the Malaysian navy performs mine sweeping operations.

     .       Throughout several damage control and integrated training
     drills, Avenger officers and enlisted personnel helped explain the
     significance of specific methods the U.S. Navy uses in training Sailors.

     .       According to State Department officials, Malaysia has made
     regional cooperation a central piece of it's foreign policy. Cooperation
     between the 7th Fleet and Malaysian navy in anti-piracy efforts has
     contributed to the recent decline in pirate attacks in the Straits of
     Malacca,

     .        

      

      

     May 2011 - joint training for Malaysian and Thai maritime enforcement
     officers - http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=585371

      

     April 2011

      

     http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/2011/04/29/navy-assures-sabahans-of-safe-coasts/
     KOTA KINABALU: The waters surrounding Sabah are now safe and free from
     piracy or terrorist attacks, according to the Royal Malaysian Navy
     (TLDM) Regional Two Commander First Admiral Anuwi Hassan.

     .       \"Although Sabah is safe from any threats, we will continue to
     deploy our men to strategic locations which we believe may be used by
     pirates or terrorist for their activities.

     .        Anuwi was speaking to the press during the 77th Navy Day
     celebration that was held at the Sepanggar Naval Base here on Wednesday.

     .        Fishermen, especially on the east coast of the state where
     Sabah shares a maritime border with the Philippines, have frequently
     complained of acts of piracy and robberies at sea for several years now.

     .        Early last year, two businessmen operating a business on an
     island were taken hostage by whom the government authorities labelled as
     `bandits' but security experts said could be linked to terrorist
     activities in the Southern Philippines.

     .        They were released at the end of last year.

     .        Anuwi also said the TLDM will receive six Littoral Combatant
     Ships and two training ships under the 10th Malaysian Plan. He said the
     vessels would be built in the country and are expected to be ready by
     2013.

     .        \"Some of the ships will be based here at the Sepanggar Naval
     Based,\" he said, adding that more assets are needed to strengthen and
     protect the country from any threats or conflicts.

      

      

      

     Feb 2011

     .       USS Abraham Lincoln - Aircraft from USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72)
     Carrier Strike Group participated in a joint aerial combat training
     exercise with the Royal Malaysian Air Force, Feb 14.

      

     .       F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets from Carrier Air Wing (CVW)2
     joined Malaysian SU-30 and FA-18D Hornets to train in multiple combat
     scenarios. Events ranged from single aircraft engaging single aircraft,
     all the way to complex multi-aircraft combat scenarios.

      

     .       With the Malaysian SU-30s maneuvering at speeds estimated close
     to MACH 1, training was aggressive and realistic.

      

     .       \"Air Combat Training gives our aviators a chance to match their
     skills against the skills of some formidable foreign aviators and their
     modern aircraft. An added benefit is promoting regional partnerships and
     improving maritime security,\" said Lt. Luke Swain of CVW-2.

      

     .       The United States and Malaysia share a diverse and expanding
     partnership and cooperate closely on a number of security matters,
     including counterterrorism, maritime domain awareness, and regional
     stability.

     .       The Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group is currently in the
     U.S. 7th Fleet's area of responsibility as part of a routine deployment

      

     Feb 2011 -- Malaysia will for the first time take part in the annual
     Cobra Gold joint military exercise this year, in which nearly 10,000
     soldiers of six countries will participate, a military source said.

     .        Cobra Gold 2011, the 30th of its kind, will be carried out
     between Feb 7-18 in northern Thailand under the jurisdiction of the 3rd
     Army Region.

     .        13 soldiers from Malaysia

     .       Malaysia, formerly an observer, will join the exercise for the
     first time as a participant in the command post exercise (CPX). 

     .       In the last part of Cobra Gold 2011 there will be a landing
     exercise under live fire at Sattahip in Chon Buri province by  Thai and
     US marines.  The exercise is codenamed PHIBTRAEX.

     .         

      

     Jan 2011 - PORT KLANG, Malaysia - USS Carl Vinson (CVN) and Carrier Air
     Wing (CVW) 17 Sailors visited

      

      

 --
 Matt Gertken
 Senior Asia Pacific analyst
 US: +001.512.744.4085
 Mobile: +33(0)67.793.2417
 STRATFOR
 www.stratfor.com


 --
 Matt Gertken
 Senior Asia Pacific analyst
 US: +001.512.744.4085
 Mobile: +33(0)67.793.2417
 STRATFOR
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-06-08 13:33:05",1,"2012-03-01 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/72358_re-discussion-us-malaysia-evolving-strategic-cooperation-.html","matt.gertken@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
72920,"Re: [MESA] [TACTICAL] WikiLeaks: U.S. saw Israeli firm's rise in
 Latin America as a threat
","   The proliferation of Israeli front companies is the reason Israel is the #
   1 FCI threat. 

   On 6/1/2011 2:10 PM, Fred Burton wrote:

     WASHINGTON - A security company led by the former head of operations for
     the Israeli military made such inroads into Latin America a few years
     ago that U.S. diplomats saw it as a security risk and moved to thwart
     the company's expansion, U.S. diplomatic cables show.

     The diplomats' efforts were made easier when an interpreter for the
     Israeli firm, Global CST, was caught peddling classified Colombian
     Defense Ministry documents to Marxist guerrillas seeking to topple the
     state, one cable said.

     Still, the ability of the Israeli security consultancy to obtain
     contracts in Colombia, Peru and Panama in rapid succession speaks to the
     prowess of retired Israeli military officers in peddling security
     know-how amid perceptions that they'd bring better results than official
     U.S. government assistance.

     At one point, Panama's intelligence chief threatened to rely more
     heavily on the Israelis out of anger that U.S. officials wouldn't tap
     the phones of the president's political enemies, according to then
     cables. U.S. officials countered that such an arrangement would threaten
     all security cooperation with Panama, and the Panamanians backed down.

     Colombia was the first Latin nation to sign a contract with Global CST,
     doing so in late 2006, according to one cable, the same year its
     founder, Maj. Gen. Israel Ziv, retired as head of the operations
     directorate of the Israel Defense Forces.

     Ziv \"was a personal acquaintance of then-Minister of Defense Juan Manuel
     Santos,\" the cable said. Santos is now Colombia's president.

     Ziv's consulting firm pledged \"a strategic assessment\" that would devise
     a plan to defeat \"internal terrorist and criminal organizations by
     2010,\" the cable, sent in late 2009, said. The exercise was named
     \"Strategic Leap.\"

     \"Over a three-year period, Ziv worked his way into the confidence of
     former Defense Minister Santos by promising a cheaper version of USG
     (U.S. government) assistance without our strings attached,\" the cable
     said.

     Colombia began working with a variety of retired and active duty Israeli
     officers \"with special operations and military intelligence
     backgrounds,\" another cable said. By 2007, 38 percent of Colombia's
     foreign defense purchases were going to Israel, it added.

     With a foot firmly in the door in Colombia, Ziv roamed the region, going
     next to Peru, a coca-producing nation that also faced security
     challenges.

     Ziv told Peruvian authorities that Global CST's had played an advisory
     role in a spectacular jungle raid on a rebel camp in Colombia a year
     earlier that freed former presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt,
     three U.S. military contractors and 11 Colombian police and soldiers.
     Colombia denies that Global CST played a role in the raid.

     The Israeli firm signed a one-year contract worth $9 million to help
     Peru defeat the Maoist Sendero Luminoso insurgency \"once and for all\" in
     that nation's remote Apurimac and Ene river valleys, according to
     another U.S. cable.

     When Global CST approached Panama's government about expanding on an
     initial contract, red flags went up at the U.S. Embassy there.

     In early 2010, an Embassy cable to Washington said Panama had already
     paid Global CST for a small security study but the nation's intelligence
     chief, Olmedo Alfaro, was threatening to rely more heavily on the
     Israelis out of anger that U.S. officials would not tap the phones of
     the president's political enemies.

     \"Alfaro is increasingly open about his agenda to replace U.S. law
     enforcement and security support with Israelis and others,\" the cable
     said, adding that the move \"bodes ill\" for quelling narcotics activity
     and crime in Panama.

     U.S. officials told the Panamanians that they would limit security
     cooperation and intelligence sharing if private consultants from a third
     nation were involved.

     \"In a meeting with then-U.S. Ambassador to Panama Barbara Stephenson,
     Panamanian Vice President Juan Carlos Varela said that the government
     \"would not let Israeli influence damage the U.S.-Panama relationship,\" a
     cable said.

     President Ricardo Martinelli \"was similarly taken aback, and emphasized
     that he did not want to endanger relations with the USG, saying 'We
     don't want to change friends,'\" the cable said.

     Adding to the pressure on Panama was news that Colombia's relations with
     Global CST had soured. In a meeting in late 2009 with the then-U.S.
     Ambassador to Colombia, William Brownfield, national police chief Oscar
     Naranjo complained that the company had turned out to be a \"disaster,\" a
     cable said.

     The same cable reported that then-Defense Minister Gabriel Silva
     overruled a planned Colombian army purchase of Israeli-made Hermes-450
     unmanned aerial vehicles, in part because of the nation's \"mixed\"
     experience with Global CST.

     Silva is now Colombia's ambassador to the U.S. His office didn't respond
     to several written and telephone messages for comment.

     Colombia's souring on the Israeli firm was partly because of U.S. rules
     that barred intelligence sharing, but also because Colombian police told
     them in February 2008 \"that a Global CST interpreter, Argentine-born
     Israeli national Shai Killman, had made copies of classified Colombian
     Defense Ministry documents in an unsuccessful attempt to sell them to
     the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) through contacts in
     Ecuador and Argentina,\" the cable said.

     The pilfered documents allegedly contained information about top
     criminals the Colombians were targeting, the cable said.

     \"Ziv denied this attempt and sent Killman back to Israel,\" it added.

     In early April, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reached Killman and
     reported that he said he \"was being 'slandered' and no such incident
     ever took place.\"

     The cable went on to say that Ziv's proposals for Colombia \"seem
     designed more to support Israeli equipment and services sales than to
     meet in-country needs.\" It added that Colombia realized that \"their
     deals are not as good as advertised.\"

     It wasn't just in Latin America where Ziv and his company pledged quick
     fix-its for acute security problems. The company, based in a city east
     of Tel Aviv, would also work in Togo, Guinea, Gabon and Nigeria, as well
     as in Eastern Europe. Last year, the Israeli government fined Global CST
     for negotiating to sell weapons and military training to Guinea's
     military junta.

     Read more:
     http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/09/113919/wikileaks-us-saw-israeli-firms.html#ixzz1O3LbVCyR
","2011-06-01 21:13:10",1,"2012-03-01 23:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/72920_re-mesa-tactical-wikileaks-u-s-saw-israeli-firm-s-rise-in.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:mesa@stratfor.com","mesa@stratfor.com,tactical@stratfor.com",""
76281,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - GREECE - Situation is evolving
","   More from my contact, I also agree on the bolded parts

   Latest developments. No co-operation! 
   Papandreou just declared a reshuffling of the government tomorrow -and a
   vote of confidence!
   He  may get the vote of confidence-marginally -and will count that MPs
   that did not topple the government will not abstain from votting the new
   measurew a few days later. Risky business and -this is what is important
   medium term- right now there is widespread doubt about the ability of any
   PASOK governement to implement the measures.
   Difficult to predict what happens next. As you may understand by now, this
   is GREEK politics, like no other! Most likely the outcome of this monkeing
   will not be nice.
   But IMF signaled today (according to FT and our own info) that they are
   going to give their side of the money for the 5th installment by early
   July, even if there is no concrete new package of help for Greece. In
   other words EU-IMF are willing to do almost whatever it takes so that we
   dont go into default right now.
   On the other hand - accidents can happen in such a big goatfuck as this
   one. 
   Best regards- and excuse the french 

   On 6/15/11 10:18 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:

     Actually these are much better, organized by most recent at top

     PM and ND leader discuss all-party government, sources claim
         15 Jun 2011 (google says about 26 mins ago)
     http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43171
     Prime Minister George Papandreou held talks with main opposition New
     Democracy leader Antonis Samaras on the telephone on Wednesday, after a
     round of telephone calls with the leaders of the other political parties
     in Parliament. Their conversation lasted roughly 20 minutes.
      
     While an earlier official announcement by ND had refused to disclose the
     content of their talks before Papandreou had expressed his position,
     unnamed sources within the party said that the prime minister had
     described the situation as extremely difficult and that he was prepared
     to consider either an all-party government or a broader alliance
     government.
      
     The same sources said that Samaras did not reject the proposal but made
     it clear that this could not work with Papandreou as prime minister. To
     this, always according to ND sources, Papandreou apparently replied that
     he was not concerned about whether he was prime minister.
      
     Other sources within the party announced that there would be a second
     telephone communication between the two men later on Wednesday
     afternoon.
      
     Samaras has apparently made it a condition that there is a substantial
     renegotiation of the terms of the Memorandum for the loans to Greece, in
     order to agree to an all-party government.
      
     The ND leader, who has been in continuous contact with his closest aides
     since the morning, is expected to head to his party's headquarters in a
     short while. (ANA)

     PM talks with Samaras on the phone
         15 Jun 2011 (google says about 1 hour ago)
     http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43169

     Prime Minister George Papandreou held talks with main opposition New
     Democracy leader Antonis Samaras on the telephone on Wednesday, after a
     round of telephone calls with the leaders of the other political parties
     in Parliament.
      
     Their conversation lasted roughly 20 minutes and ND refused to reveal
     any information concerning their talks before the prime minister
     addresses the public.
      
     Samaras, who has been in continuous contact with his closest aides since
     the morning, was expected to head to his party's headquarters after the
     conversation with Papandreou. (ANA)

     Tsipras calls for immediate elections in phone call with PM
         15 Jun 2011 (google says about 2 hours ago)
     http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43163

     Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza parliamentary alliance)
     parliamentary group leader Alexis Tsipras on Wednesday called for
     immediate general elections as the only way out for the country, during
     a telephone discussion with Prime Minister George Papandreou, according
     to party sources.
      
     Papandreou called Tsipras after an extraordinary meeting with President
     of the Republic Karolos Papoulias earlier in the day, in the context of
     a round of phone calls to all political party leaders.
      
     Sources said Papandreou reiterated his government's and his own personal
     determination that the Medium-Term Fiscal Strategy Framework programme
     will be passed by parliament, to which Tsipras replied that Syriza
     remained firm in its stance that the Memorandum and the Medium-Term
     programme are catastrophic for the country, and that the only way out,
     and to the benefit of stability in Greece, is immediate recourse to
     general elections.
      
     The same sources said that neither a new meeting of the Council of
     Political Party Leaders nor a one-on-one meeting with Papandreou were
     put forward during the phone discussion.
      
     Tsipras will make statements immediately after the prime minister's
     address to the nation later on Wednesday. (ANA)

     PM meets with President, rumours abound
         by (AthensNewsWeb)             15 Jun 2011 (google says about 3
     hours ago)
     http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43133
     Prime Minister George Papandreou met with the President of the Republic
     Karolos Papoulias, on Wednesday noon, stating that this is a \"historic
     moment\", while Greek journalists cancelled their 24-hour nationwide
     strike, as rumours abound about the possibility of a coalition
     government or snap elections.
      
     According to government sources, the prime minister will continue on
     Wednesday his round of telephone contacts with the political party
     leaders after his extraordinary meeting with Karolos Papoulias, adding
     that Papandreou had spoken only with Communist Party of Greece (KKE)
     leader Aleka Papariga and Democratic Left leader Fotis Kouvelis before
     the meeting.
      
     This clarification comes as earlier on Wednesday, a statement by
     Papandreou before the meeting with Papoulias that he was in contact with
     the party leaders to seek consensus sparked denials of such telephone
     contacts by ND and Syriza.

      
     Papandreou, the sources continued, would make an address to the people
     later on Wednesday. The government sources left open all prospects, but
     for the time being ruled out snap elections.
      
     Earlier, Pasok MP Ntinos Vrettos asked for the government to resign so
     that a new one would be formed of publicly acclaimed experts and
     politicians.
      
     On Tuesday, Florina MP Giorgos Lianis tendered his resignation as a
     member of Pasok's central committee. Lianis is keeping his parliament
     seat and will continue to serve as an independent, leaving the ruling
     Pasok party with 155 MPs.
      
     In his resignation letter addressed to the Speaker of the Parliament and
     to Prime Minister George Papandreou, Lianis stressed that he does not
     believe anymore in the government's economic policy and that \"we [the
     government] have failed and we are forced to hide the truth from the
     people\".
      
     Lianis, who started his career as a journalist, was first elected to
     parliament on Pasok's ticket in 1989 and he has served as deputy culture
     minister from 1993 to 1996.
      
     Earlier on Tuesday, Pasok MP for Kozani Alekos Athanasiadis in a radio
     interview said that he would vote against the medium-term programme.
      
     \"I will not vote for the medium-term programme and I assume my
     responsibilities,\" Athanasiadis said.
      
     The government on Thursday tabled in parliament a medium-term fiscal
     strategy framework for the economy envisaging a new round of severe
     austerity measures designed to bring in overall revenues of 28.259
     billion euros by 2015, as well as a 50 billion euros privatisation
     programme. The programme is scheduled to be put to vote in the
     300-member chamber on June 28.

     ND denies reports of Samaras meeting with PM aide
         15 Jun 2011 (google says about 5 hours ago)
     http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43150
     Main opposition New Democracy categorically denied on Wednesday rumours
     appearing on several blogs and websites of a meeting on Tuesday between
     ND leader Antonis Samaras and a representative of Prime Minister George
     Papandreou.
      
     In a statement, ND press officer Yiannis Michelakis called the rumours
     \"absurd\" and unworthy of denial.
      
     ND further denied any telephone contact whatsoever between Samaras and
     Papandreou. (ANA)

     On 6/15/11 10:05 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:

       ND denies reports of Samaras meeting with PM aide
           15 Jun 2011
       http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43150
       Main opposition New Democracy categorically denied on Wednesday
       rumours appearing on several blogs and websites of a meeting on
       Tuesday between ND leader Antonis Samaras and a representative of
       Prime Minister George Papandreou.
        
       In a statement, ND press officer Yiannis Michelakis called the rumours
       \"absurd\" and unworthy of denial.
        
       ND further denied any telephone contact whatsoever between Samaras and
       Papandreou. (ANA)

       Greek PM Prepared To Step Down To Form Alliance Government Even As
       Opposition's Samaras Demands Substantial MOU Renegotiation
       Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/15/2011 10:50 -0400
       http://www.zerohedge.com/article/greek-pm-prepared-step-down-form-alliance-government-even-oppositions-samaras-demands-substa

       Developments in Athens are to say the least fluid. The latest news out
       of Athens News states that G-Pap is prepared to step down in order to
       form an all-party consensus government with the main opposition party,
       New Democracy. \"Prime Minister George Papandreou held talks with main
       opposition New Democracy leader Antonis Samaras on the telephone on
       Wednesday, after a round of telephone calls with the leaders of the
       other political parties in Parliament. Their conversation lasted
       roughly 20 minutes. While an earlier official announcement by ND had
       refused to disclose the content of their talks before Papandreou had
       expressed his position, unnamed sources within the party said that the
       prime minister had described the situation as extremely difficult and
       that he was prepared to consider either an all-party government or a
       broader alliance government. The same sources said that Samaras did
       not reject the proposal but made it clear that this could not work
       with Papandreou as prime minister. To this, always according to ND
       sources, Papandreou apparently replied that he was not concerned about
       whether he was prime minister.\" And while the political wrangling is
       irrelevant for the rest of the world, what is relevant, especially for
       the ECB which would need a bail out by the Fed should Greece default
       is the following: \"Samaras has apparently made it a condition that
       there is a substantial renegotiation of the terms of the Memorandum
       for the loans to Greece, in order to agree to an all-party
       government.\" Good luck passing that by the Troica. In other words,
       Greece is now in a power vacuum and the worst case outcome for Europe
       appears set to be realized.

       PM and ND leader discuss all-party government, sources claim
       Wednesday, June 15, 2011
       http://greeceforu.blogspot.com/2011/06/pm-and-nd-leader-discuss-all-party.html
       Prime Minister George Papandreou held talks with main opposition New
       Democracy leader Antonis Samaras on the telephone on Wednesday, after
       a round of telephone calls with the leaders of the other political
       parties in Parliament. Their conversation lasted roughly 20 minutes.
        
       While an earlier official announcement by ND had refused to disclose
       the content of their talks before Papandreou had expressed his
       position, unnamed sources within the party said that the prime
       minister had described the situation as extremely difficult and that
       he was prepared to consider either an all-party government or a
       broader alliance government.
        
       The same sources said that Samaras did not reject the proposal but
       made it clear that this could not work with Papandreou as prime
       minister. To this, always according to ND sources, Papandreou
       apparently replied that he was not concerned about whether he was
       prime minister.
        
       Other sources within the party announced that there would be a second
       telephone communication between the two men later on Wednesday
       afternoon.
        
       Samaras has apparently made it a condition that there is a substantial
       renegotiation of the terms of the Memorandum for the loans to Greece,
       in order to agree to an all-party government.
        
       The ND leader, who has been in continuous contact with his closest
       aides since the morning, is expected to head to his party's
       headquarters in a short while.

Greece's Drama: Political Leaders Reject PM's Offer for Consensus

       Posted by keeptalkinggreece in Politics
       http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2011/06/15/greeces-drama-political-leaders-reject-pms-offer-for-consensus/

       Tension is high not only on Syntagma Square but also on the political
       level, as Prime Minister George Papandreou contacted all political
       leaders after his meeting with the President earlier on Wednesday.
       Although it has not been very clear what were the exact proposals
       submitted by the Prime Ministers apart from `consensus' and several
       scenarios circulated, Greek media claim now that all political leaders
       turned down the PM. Newspaper Proto Thema even claims that they told
       him unanimously \"George, Go Away!\" and demanded early elections. Some
       scenarios speak of a new government withih

       Latest leakages from main opposition centre-right party Nea Dimokratia
       report that ND agrees only to a bipartisan or a ND-PASOK government,
       however with George Papandreou leaving the office of the prime
       minister. Another condition for ND to participate in a government with
       PASOK is the re-negotiation of the Memorandum and the Mid-Term
       Stability Programme.

       Earlier, PASOK-MP Dinos Vrettos asked in a written statement, all
       members of the government to resign and crucial ministerial positions
       to be occupied by non members of PASOK. He also favors a
       re-negotiation of the Mid-Term Package.

       Political leaders and some PASOK deputies seem to bow to the public
       demand, as this has been expressed by the mass protests, that a strict
       austerity without perspective for recovery and an always increasing
       debt does nothing else but impoverish people for the shake of the
       banks and the rescue of the Eurozone.

       George Papandreou is expected to address the public later today.

       keep tuned with \"Keep Talking, Greece\" and follow our Live Streaming
       and Live Blogging

       On 6/15/11 9:44 AM, Marko Papic wrote:

         More from our confed partner, he is feeding me up to date info. We
         should think about sit-repping this stuff

         Latest info is that Papandreou himself proposed such a change as a
         last ditch effort. It seems we are close to some sort of a deal. A
         prerogative of such a governement will most probably be a
         renegotiation of the measures. But conceivably, since there is no
         time for much bargaining now, first they would pass the measures
         through parliament (so that we can get the money) \"in principle\" and
         then try to renegotiate some of the measures (taxes mostly)
         proposing a different mix and probably some political \"leeway\"  from
         the EU
         Its a touchy situation and as I said things are still evolving. I
         dont think we are going to an Argentina scenario at least not at
         this point.
         A national salvation governement backed by 90% of political parties
         is what the EU wanted all along, so I imagine  a lot of give and
         take  is going to happen soon.

         On 6/15/11 9:09 AM, Marko Papic wrote:

           Two more updates on this:

           Another PASOK MP Mr Dinos Vrettos, asked today for a total
           reshuffling of the government , and putting well known
           personalities from a broader spectrum in the new government.

           Papandreou in talks with Samaras about a coalition governement.
           Samaras wants a \"national salvation\" government without Papandreou
           as  a prime minister ( so that there is a new prime minister of
           wide and common acceptance).

           On 6/15/11 8:21 AM, Benjamin Preisler wrote:

             PUBLICATION: Yes
             SOURCE: EL501
             ATTRIBUTION: Greek media sources
             SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Confed partner
             SOURCE  Reliability : A
             ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1
             DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
             SPECIAL HANDLING: Marko

              I havent replyed earlier because the situation  is constantly
             evolving. Yesterday there were two MPs that refused to sign the
             new measures there is a big stike today with some (limited)
             violence going on at the center of Athens and our info is that
             Papandreou is in contact with other political leaders for some
             kind of broader consencus, maybe even some form of coalition
             govewrnement. 
             Will get back to you but the elections scenario is also at the
             forefront if no consencus in reached.
             --
             Marko Papic

             STRATFOR Analyst
             C: + 1-512-905-3091
             marko.papic@stratfor.com

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19

 --
 Marko Papic
 Senior Analyst
 STRATFOR
 + 1-512-744-4094 (O)
 + 1-512-905-3091 (C)
 221 W. 6th St, Ste. 400
 Austin, TX 78701 - USA
 www.stratfor.com
 @marko_papic

 --
 Marko Papic
 Senior Analyst
 STRATFOR
 + 1-512-744-4094 (O)
 + 1-512-905-3091 (C)
 221 W. 6th St, Ste. 400
 Austin, TX 78701 - USA
 www.stratfor.com
 @marko_papic

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com


 --
 Michael Wilson
 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com


 --
 Marko Papic
 Senior Analyst
 STRATFOR
 + 1-512-744-4094 (O)
 + 1-512-905-3091 (C)
 221 W. 6th St, Ste. 400
 Austin, TX 78701 - USA
 www.stratfor.com
 @marko_papic
","2011-06-15 22:01:28",1,"2011-03-05 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/76281_re-alpha-insight-greece-situation-is-evolving-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
76300,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - GREECE - Situation is evolving
","   Another update from our boy

   Right in all your points. On point one (unrest) though, I have to say -
   Yet. Things may get worse - maybe soon. Political instability breeds
   trouble, as they say. Also keep in mind that this time there are people in
   Sintagma square every day for 22 days now! 
   Marco,  I have to call it a night (after about 14-15 intense hours) will
   keep you posted on developments tomorrow.
   Keep an eye on the larger picture too, things are not going well, some
   international  investors (Hedge Funds- Paulson etc. some rumors say)  are
   really betting on a Greek accident and the following contagion.

   On 6/15/11 3:01 PM, Marko Papic wrote:

     More from my contact, I also agree on the bolded parts

     Latest developments. No co-operation! 
     Papandreou just declared a reshuffling of the government tomorrow -and a
     vote of confidence!
     He  may get the vote of confidence-marginally -and will count that MPs
     that did not topple the government will not abstain from votting the new
     measurew a few days later. Risky business and -this is what is important
     medium term- right now there is widespread doubt about the ability of
     any PASOK governement to implement the measures.
     Difficult to predict what happens next. As you may understand by now,
     this is GREEK politics, like no other! Most likely the outcome of this
     monkeing will not be nice.
     But IMF signaled today (according to FT and our own info) that they are
     going to give their side of the money for the 5th installment by early
     July, even if there is no concrete new package of help for Greece. In
     other words EU-IMF are willing to do almost whatever it takes so that we
     dont go into default right now.
     On the other hand - accidents can happen in such a big goatfuck as this
     one. 
     Best regards- and excuse the french 

     On 6/15/11 10:18 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:

       Actually these are much better, organized by most recent at top

       PM and ND leader discuss all-party government, sources claim
           15 Jun 2011 (google says about 26 mins ago)
       http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43171
       Prime Minister George Papandreou held talks with main opposition New
       Democracy leader Antonis Samaras on the telephone on Wednesday, after
       a round of telephone calls with the leaders of the other political
       parties in Parliament. Their conversation lasted roughly 20 minutes.
        
       While an earlier official announcement by ND had refused to disclose
       the content of their talks before Papandreou had expressed his
       position, unnamed sources within the party said that the prime
       minister had described the situation as extremely difficult and that
       he was prepared to consider either an all-party government or a
       broader alliance government.
        
       The same sources said that Samaras did not reject the proposal but
       made it clear that this could not work with Papandreou as prime
       minister. To this, always according to ND sources, Papandreou
       apparently replied that he was not concerned about whether he was
       prime minister.
        
       Other sources within the party announced that there would be a second
       telephone communication between the two men later on Wednesday
       afternoon.
        
       Samaras has apparently made it a condition that there is a substantial
       renegotiation of the terms of the Memorandum for the loans to Greece,
       in order to agree to an all-party government.
        
       The ND leader, who has been in continuous contact with his closest
       aides since the morning, is expected to head to his party's
       headquarters in a short while. (ANA)

       PM talks with Samaras on the phone
           15 Jun 2011 (google says about 1 hour ago)
       http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43169

       Prime Minister George Papandreou held talks with main opposition New
       Democracy leader Antonis Samaras on the telephone on Wednesday, after
       a round of telephone calls with the leaders of the other political
       parties in Parliament.
        
       Their conversation lasted roughly 20 minutes and ND refused to reveal
       any information concerning their talks before the prime minister
       addresses the public.
        
       Samaras, who has been in continuous contact with his closest aides
       since the morning, was expected to head to his party's headquarters
       after the conversation with Papandreou. (ANA)

       Tsipras calls for immediate elections in phone call with PM
           15 Jun 2011 (google says about 2 hours ago)
       http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43163

       Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza parliamentary alliance)
       parliamentary group leader Alexis Tsipras on Wednesday called for
       immediate general elections as the only way out for the country,
       during a telephone discussion with Prime Minister George Papandreou,
       according to party sources.
        
       Papandreou called Tsipras after an extraordinary meeting with
       President of the Republic Karolos Papoulias earlier in the day, in the
       context of a round of phone calls to all political party leaders.
        
       Sources said Papandreou reiterated his government's and his own
       personal determination that the Medium-Term Fiscal Strategy Framework
       programme will be passed by parliament, to which Tsipras replied that
       Syriza remained firm in its stance that the Memorandum and the
       Medium-Term programme are catastrophic for the country, and that the
       only way out, and to the benefit of stability in Greece, is immediate
       recourse to general elections.
        
       The same sources said that neither a new meeting of the Council of
       Political Party Leaders nor a one-on-one meeting with Papandreou were
       put forward during the phone discussion.
        
       Tsipras will make statements immediately after the prime minister's
       address to the nation later on Wednesday. (ANA)

       PM meets with President, rumours abound
           by (AthensNewsWeb)             15 Jun 2011 (google says about 3
       hours ago)
       http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43133
       Prime Minister George Papandreou met with the President of the
       Republic Karolos Papoulias, on Wednesday noon, stating that this is a
       \"historic moment\", while Greek journalists cancelled their 24-hour
       nationwide strike, as rumours abound about the possibility of a
       coalition government or snap elections.
        
       According to government sources, the prime minister will continue on
       Wednesday his round of telephone contacts with the political party
       leaders after his extraordinary meeting with Karolos Papoulias, adding
       that Papandreou had spoken only with Communist Party of Greece (KKE)
       leader Aleka Papariga and Democratic Left leader Fotis Kouvelis before
       the meeting.
        
       This clarification comes as earlier on Wednesday, a statement by
       Papandreou before the meeting with Papoulias that he was in contact
       with the party leaders to seek consensus sparked denials of such
       telephone contacts by ND and Syriza.

        
       Papandreou, the sources continued, would make an address to the people
       later on Wednesday. The government sources left open all prospects,
       but for the time being ruled out snap elections.
        
       Earlier, Pasok MP Ntinos Vrettos asked for the government to resign so
       that a new one would be formed of publicly acclaimed experts and
       politicians.
        
       On Tuesday, Florina MP Giorgos Lianis tendered his resignation as a
       member of Pasok's central committee. Lianis is keeping his parliament
       seat and will continue to serve as an independent, leaving the ruling
       Pasok party with 155 MPs.
        
       In his resignation letter addressed to the Speaker of the Parliament
       and to Prime Minister George Papandreou, Lianis stressed that he does
       not believe anymore in the government's economic policy and that \"we
       [the government] have failed and we are forced to hide the truth from
       the people\".
        
       Lianis, who started his career as a journalist, was first elected to
       parliament on Pasok's ticket in 1989 and he has served as deputy
       culture minister from 1993 to 1996.
        
       Earlier on Tuesday, Pasok MP for Kozani Alekos Athanasiadis in a radio
       interview said that he would vote against the medium-term programme.
        
       \"I will not vote for the medium-term programme and I assume my
       responsibilities,\" Athanasiadis said.
        
       The government on Thursday tabled in parliament a medium-term fiscal
       strategy framework for the economy envisaging a new round of severe
       austerity measures designed to bring in overall revenues of 28.259
       billion euros by 2015, as well as a 50 billion euros privatisation
       programme. The programme is scheduled to be put to vote in the
       300-member chamber on June 28.

       ND denies reports of Samaras meeting with PM aide
           15 Jun 2011 (google says about 5 hours ago)
       http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43150
       Main opposition New Democracy categorically denied on Wednesday
       rumours appearing on several blogs and websites of a meeting on
       Tuesday between ND leader Antonis Samaras and a representative of
       Prime Minister George Papandreou.
        
       In a statement, ND press officer Yiannis Michelakis called the rumours
       \"absurd\" and unworthy of denial.
        
       ND further denied any telephone contact whatsoever between Samaras and
       Papandreou. (ANA)

       On 6/15/11 10:05 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:

         ND denies reports of Samaras meeting with PM aide
             15 Jun 2011
         http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43150
         Main opposition New Democracy categorically denied on Wednesday
         rumours appearing on several blogs and websites of a meeting on
         Tuesday between ND leader Antonis Samaras and a representative of
         Prime Minister George Papandreou.
          
         In a statement, ND press officer Yiannis Michelakis called the
         rumours \"absurd\" and unworthy of denial.
          
         ND further denied any telephone contact whatsoever between Samaras
         and Papandreou. (ANA)

         Greek PM Prepared To Step Down To Form Alliance Government Even As
         Opposition's Samaras Demands Substantial MOU Renegotiation
         Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/15/2011 10:50 -0400
         http://www.zerohedge.com/article/greek-pm-prepared-step-down-form-alliance-government-even-oppositions-samaras-demands-substa

         Developments in Athens are to say the least fluid. The latest news
         out of Athens News states that G-Pap is prepared to step down in
         order to form an all-party consensus government with the main
         opposition party, New Democracy. \"Prime Minister George Papandreou
         held talks with main opposition New Democracy leader Antonis Samaras
         on the telephone on Wednesday, after a round of telephone calls with
         the leaders of the other political parties in Parliament. Their
         conversation lasted roughly 20 minutes. While an earlier official
         announcement by ND had refused to disclose the content of their
         talks before Papandreou had expressed his position, unnamed sources
         within the party said that the prime minister had described the
         situation as extremely difficult and that he was prepared to
         consider either an all-party government or a broader alliance
         government. The same sources said that Samaras did not reject the
         proposal but made it clear that this could not work with Papandreou
         as prime minister. To this, always according to ND sources,
         Papandreou apparently replied that he was not concerned about
         whether he was prime minister.\" And while the political wrangling is
         irrelevant for the rest of the world, what is relevant, especially
         for the ECB which would need a bail out by the Fed should Greece
         default is the following: \"Samaras has apparently made it a
         condition that there is a substantial renegotiation of the terms of
         the Memorandum for the loans to Greece, in order to agree to an
         all-party government.\" Good luck passing that by the Troica. In
         other words, Greece is now in a power vacuum and the worst case
         outcome for Europe appears set to be realized.

         PM and ND leader discuss all-party government, sources claim
         Wednesday, June 15, 2011
         http://greeceforu.blogspot.com/2011/06/pm-and-nd-leader-discuss-all-party.html
         Prime Minister George Papandreou held talks with main opposition New
         Democracy leader Antonis Samaras on the telephone on Wednesday,
         after a round of telephone calls with the leaders of the other
         political parties in Parliament. Their conversation lasted roughly
         20 minutes.
          
         While an earlier official announcement by ND had refused to disclose
         the content of their talks before Papandreou had expressed his
         position, unnamed sources within the party said that the prime
         minister had described the situation as extremely difficult and that
         he was prepared to consider either an all-party government or a
         broader alliance government.
          
         The same sources said that Samaras did not reject the proposal but
         made it clear that this could not work with Papandreou as prime
         minister. To this, always according to ND sources, Papandreou
         apparently replied that he was not concerned about whether he was
         prime minister.
          
         Other sources within the party announced that there would be a
         second telephone communication between the two men later on
         Wednesday afternoon.
          
         Samaras has apparently made it a condition that there is a
         substantial renegotiation of the terms of the Memorandum for the
         loans to Greece, in order to agree to an all-party government.
          
         The ND leader, who has been in continuous contact with his closest
         aides since the morning, is expected to head to his party's
         headquarters in a short while.

Greece's Drama: Political Leaders Reject PM's Offer for Consensus

         Posted by keeptalkinggreece in Politics
         http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2011/06/15/greeces-drama-political-leaders-reject-pms-offer-for-consensus/

         Tension is high not only on Syntagma Square but also on the
         political level, as Prime Minister George Papandreou contacted all
         political leaders after his meeting with the President earlier on
         Wednesday. Although it has not been very clear what were the exact
         proposals submitted by the Prime Ministers apart from `consensus'
         and several scenarios circulated, Greek media claim now that all
         political leaders turned down the PM. Newspaper Proto Thema even
         claims that they told him unanimously \"George, Go Away!\" and
         demanded early elections. Some scenarios speak of a new government
         withih

         Latest leakages from main opposition centre-right party Nea
         Dimokratia report that ND agrees only to a bipartisan or a ND-PASOK
         government, however with George Papandreou leaving the office of the
         prime minister. Another condition for ND to participate in a
         government with PASOK is the re-negotiation of the Memorandum and
         the Mid-Term Stability Programme.

         Earlier, PASOK-MP Dinos Vrettos asked in a written statement, all
         members of the government to resign and crucial ministerial
         positions to be occupied by non members of PASOK. He also favors a
         re-negotiation of the Mid-Term Package.

         Political leaders and some PASOK deputies seem to bow to the public
         demand, as this has been expressed by the mass protests, that a
         strict austerity without perspective for recovery and an always
         increasing debt does nothing else but impoverish people for the
         shake of the banks and the rescue of the Eurozone.

         George Papandreou is expected to address the public later today.

         keep tuned with \"Keep Talking, Greece\" and follow our Live Streaming
         and Live Blogging

         On 6/15/11 9:44 AM, Marko Papic wrote:

           More from our confed partner, he is feeding me up to date info. We
           should think about sit-repping this stuff

           Latest info is that Papandreou himself proposed such a change as a
           last ditch effort. It seems we are close to some sort of a deal. A
           prerogative of such a governement will most probably be a
           renegotiation of the measures. But conceivably, since there is no
           time for much bargaining now, first they would pass the measures
           through parliament (so that we can get the money) \"in principle\"
           and then try to renegotiate some of the measures (taxes mostly)
           proposing a different mix and probably some political \"leeway\"
            from the EU
           Its a touchy situation and as I said things are still evolving. I
           dont think we are going to an Argentina scenario at least not at
           this point.
           A national salvation governement backed by 90% of political
           parties is what the EU wanted all along, so I imagine  a lot of
           give and take  is going to happen soon.

           On 6/15/11 9:09 AM, Marko Papic wrote:

             Two more updates on this:

             Another PASOK MP Mr Dinos Vrettos, asked today for a total
             reshuffling of the government , and putting well known
             personalities from a broader spectrum in the new government.

             Papandreou in talks with Samaras about a coalition governement.
             Samaras wants a \"national salvation\" government without
             Papandreou as  a prime minister ( so that there is a new prime
             minister of wide and common acceptance).

             On 6/15/11 8:21 AM, Benjamin Preisler wrote:

               PUBLICATION: Yes
               SOURCE: EL501
               ATTRIBUTION: Greek media sources
               SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Confed partner
               SOURCE  Reliability : A
               ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1
               DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
               SPECIAL HANDLING: Marko

                I havent replyed earlier because the situation  is constantly
               evolving. Yesterday there were two MPs that refused to sign
               the new measures there is a big stike today with some
               (limited) violence going on at the center of Athens and our
               info is that Papandreou is in contact with other political
               leaders for some kind of broader consencus, maybe even some
               form of coalition govewrnement. 
               Will get back to you but the elections scenario is also at the
               forefront if no consencus in reached.
               --
               Marko Papic

               STRATFOR Analyst
               C: + 1-512-905-3091
               marko.papic@stratfor.com

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19

 --
 Marko Papic
 Senior Analyst
 STRATFOR
 + 1-512-744-4094 (O)
 + 1-512-905-3091 (C)
 221 W. 6th St, Ste. 400
 Austin, TX 78701 - USA
 www.stratfor.com
 @marko_papic

 --
 Marko Papic
 Senior Analyst
 STRATFOR
 + 1-512-744-4094 (O)
 + 1-512-905-3091 (C)
 221 W. 6th St, Ste. 400
 Austin, TX 78701 - USA
 www.stratfor.com
 @marko_papic

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com


 --
 Michael Wilson
 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com


 --
 Marko Papic
 Senior Analyst
 STRATFOR
 + 1-512-744-4094 (O)
 + 1-512-905-3091 (C)
 221 W. 6th St, Ste. 400
 Austin, TX 78701 - USA
 www.stratfor.com
 @marko_papic

 --
 Marko Papic
 Senior Analyst
 STRATFOR
 + 1-512-744-4094 (O)
 + 1-512-905-3091 (C)
 221 W. 6th St, Ste. 400
 Austin, TX 78701 - USA
 www.stratfor.com
 @marko_papic
","2011-06-15 22:53:28",1,"2011-03-05 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/76300_re-alpha-insight-greece-situation-is-evolving-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
77532,"Re: Former Spanish PM Azner
","   Haha, I'm glad you noticed those gorgeous locks as well
   Aznar could have been exaggerating the ETA in VZ stuff, but who knows

   Sent from my iPhone
   On Nov 16, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Reginald Thompson
   <reginald.thompson@stratfor.com> wrote:

     At least 20 camps? Pretty impressive. That's more than I've seen in OS,
     where so far all they've been focusing on is the Guasdalito camp where
     Cubillas was allegedly at, but it's quite possible all those former
     etarras are spread out all over the place. I would he's a lot more open
     about heaping criticisms on Chavez since I heard him speak at Trinity
     back in 2004, where he referred to him as \"an interesting man.\" My
     brother has a picture of himself with Aznar at that event. Every time I
     look at it I really do think, it's always his hair that I notice.....

     -----------------
     Reginald Thompson

     Cell: (011) 504 8990-7741

     OSINT
     Stratfor

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 5:26:21 PM
     Subject: Former Spanish PM Azner

     Wow, SeA+-or presidente is hardcore.. Way more extreme than even the  
     Israeli officials I've heard speak. He honestly believes that all  
     terrorists are the same and that nothing short of total war can defeat  
     them. He is adamantly against any kind of negotiation with terrorists  
     and criticizes France, Germany and others heavily in this regard. He  
     attributes French and German \"weakness\" on counterterrorism to their  
     larger Muslim populations. He said OBL's statement on retaking Andaluz  
     is all he heard and the Germans and French just didn't get it. He says  
     poverty has zero connection to terrorism and that developmental aid  
     policies are useless. On ETA, he said the ceasefires are just time  
     buying measures, nothing more. In Catalonia he says the regional govt  
     encourages Muslim immigration from Pakistan, Algeria, etc because they  
     can more easily linguistically integrate them as opposed to Spanish-
     speaking immigrants. This is also where the most radical imams are in  
     the country. He also said ETA has at least 20 camps in Venezuela and  
     ggat farc and eta work with each other in training l, weapons, etc.

     Overall, he's very ideological and hardline. Good reminder of the  
     personal role in poltics (though he also paid for that and is  
     embarassed by his loss)

     Also, great hair.

     Sent from my iPhone
","2010-11-17 00:44:52",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/77532_re-former-spanish-pm-azner-.html","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com","","analysts@stratfor.com",""
78019,"[alpha] INSIGHT - PNG - Woman's body found in PM's home - CN65
","    SOURCE:  CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources (and doing business with the leadership in PNG)
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

   My view is that the links between PNG and China won't be changed by who is
   in power, as China already has a substantial foot in the resources sector
   - Ramu NiCo and Marengo Mining, for example, as well as sniffing around
   PNG LNG.
   The main factor limiting China's ability to reach into the country is the
   inability of the PNG politicians to be efficient in receiving aid offers.
    For example, most of a US$200m loan facility remains undrawn because they
   can't work out how to utilise it.
   The thing about Melanesia is that politicians are not pro-active, and
   certainly not policy active.  They are instead led by people from outside.
    The factors that determine future direction are: first and foremost, how
   Australia throws aid around; and what other countries put on offer.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com


 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19
","2011-06-15 16:43:43",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/78019_-alpha-insight-png-woman-s-body-found-in-pm-s-home-cn65-.html","ben.preisler@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
80337,"Re: [latam] [EastAsia] ARGENTINA/CHINA/ECON - Hungry China Shops in
	Argentina
","   It is a good topic, they are all over the map. We've addressed it many
   times in the past, but there is always plenty going on. Jen also got some
   recent insight on this. it is a vast topic. for instance, China has
   invested about $10 bil in Brazil energy, $8 billion in Argentina energy,
   and $2 bil in Ecuador,  if memory serves. $7 billion in peruvian metals
   mining, $3 billion in Chilean metals, ... also a lot in venezuela, esp in
   energy and transport ...

   On 6/20/11 9:37 AM, Benjamin Preisler wrote:

     It seems like China is all over the map in Latin America. Have we ever
     really addressed this? What does the US think/do about it?

     Hungry China Shops in Argentina
     June 20, 2011

     http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303823104576391621352528138.html

     BUENOS AIRES-Chinese investment is flooding into Argentina as the Asian
     giant expands its global commodity hunt from the raw materials used in
     industry to the foodstuffs needed to feed its 1.3 billion citizens.

     China's investment in Latin America hit $15.6 billion during the
     12-month period through the end of May, nearly three times greater than
     the year-ago period, consulting firm Deloitte said in a report. Of that
     amount, Brazil received about 60% and Argentina close to 40%.

     During the last three years, more than 70% of China's investment in the
     region went to energy and minerals, but farming is attracting more
     attention as the country seeks to fill its bowls from foreign fields.

     China already buys the bulk of Argentina's soybean exports, its top crop
     and largest source of export revenue. Soybeans are mainly used as
     livestock feed in China, where meat consumption is rising along with
     personal incomes. At the same time, urbanization is shrinking the amount
     of arable land available in China.

     Last week, China's largest farming company, Heilongjiang Beidahuang
     Nongken Group, signed a joint venture with Argentina's Cresud SA to buy
     land and farm soybeans.

     Cresud is one of Argentina's top agriculture firms with control over
     more than one million hectares (2.47 million acres) of farmland that
     produce grain, cattle and milk.

     Cresud didn't respond to requests for comment.

     Heilongjiang Beidahuang Chairman Sui Fengfu told Dow Jones Newswires in
     March that the company plans to buy 200,000 hectares of overseas
     farmland this year, and that Latin America is a target area. The company
     is already farming two million hectares of land outside China.

     Heilongjiang Beidahuang is also spending $1.5 billion to lease and
     develop farms on 300,000 hectares in Argentina's Rio Negro Province.
     Over a five- to 10-year period, the company plans to grow wheat, corn,
     soybeans, fruit, vegetables and wine grapes for export to China.

     The deals with local partners such as Cresud and the province of Rio
     Negro appear aimed at avoiding a backlash against foreign ownership of
     farmland in Argentina, since Heilongjiang Beidahuang won't be buying the
     land outright.

     President Cristina Fernandez has introduced legislation limiting land
     purchases by foreign individuals and companies to 1,000 hectares in
     rural areas, a move with popular support after a number of foreigners
     bought large holdings in recent years.

     Heilongjiang Beidahuang's incursion in agriculture comes hot on the
     heels of heavy Chinese investment in Argentina's oil sector.

     In February, Occidental Petroleum Corp. sold its local assets to China
     Petroleum & Chemical Corp. for $2.5 billion. Last year, China's Cnooc
     Ltd., in partnership with Argentina's Bridas Corp., agreed to buy a 60%
     stake in Pan American Energy from BP PLC for $7.1 billion.

     Deloitte predicts that Chinese investment will continue pouring into
     Latin America but expects a diversification in the future into other
     industries such as manufacturing, infrastructure and finance.

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19

 --
 Matt Gertken
 Senior Asia Pacific analyst
 US: +001.512.744.4085
 Mobile: +33(0)67.793.2417
 STRATFOR
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-06-20 16:45:46",1,"2012-03-05 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/80337_re-latam-eastasia-argentina-china-econ-hungry-china-shops-in.html","matt.gertken@stratfor.com","mailto:latam@stratfor.com","eastasia@stratfor.com,latam@stratfor.com,ben.preisler@stratfor.com",""
80990,"[alpha] INSIGHT - Russian & German deal over Moldova
","   SOURCE: MD101
   ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in Washington & Chisinau
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Head of Moldovan Lobby in Washington, but lives
   partially in Chisinau & connected to most politicians
   PUBLICATION: yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   SOURCE HANDLER: Lauren

    

   During the meeting Tuesday between Merkel and Putin in Geneva, it was
   decided that the pair will attempt to strike a deal on Moldova, that would
   put the country more security under Moscow's influence.

    

   It is a \"German proposal\" being offered to the Moldovan and TD governments
   though Russia helped write it. The proposal is that the TDs will get
   representation (could be 5 or 15 percent, or proportional) inside of the
   Moldovan parliament.

    

   This would literally flip the government as the TDs would ally with the
   Commies, which would far outnumber the so-called pro-European coalition.
   Meaning, Russia would have a stable and pro-Russian government entrenched
   in Moldova, not a chaotic one.

    

   In return, Russia has offered to be \"open\" to allowing EU or OSCE
   peacekeepers into TD to help it patrol with its military. Not that Russia
   said they will, but that they are open to the possibility. Russia is
   comfortable with this as their troops would stay, and then they would have
   a firm pro-Russian Moldovan government.

    

   This German-Russian proposal is under the guise of the so-called EU-Russia
   Foreign Policy and Security Council-which hasn't even been formed and
   isn't even an EU council, as only Berlin and Moscow are talking.

    

   So now the Germans and Russians are talking to the Moldovans and TDs on
   this with Putin personally handling the TDs and Merkel the Moldovans.

    

   The reason why the Moldovans are even considering this is because it is a
   German proposal. The Moldovans (government and regular people) absolutely
   love German attention, as it makes them feel important. Moreover, the
   Germans are offering some carrots - economic investment and other ties.

    

   The ones in the ruling coalition who are doing the negotiations are Filat
   and the FM Yuri Lyanke, who is in Filat's party. Filat believes that if he
   not only gets an agreement on TD, gets Germany econ investment & is
   personally linked to Germany, then his popularity will soar. The coalition
   in Moldova is already shaky and the members of the coalition are willing
   to go their own ways if necessary. This could keep Filat in the political
   game no matter what happens. Filat is not pro-Western or pro-Russian, he
   is pro-himself, so he is looking out for his political future.

    

   Now, theoretically, any negotiation is not suppose to be German or Russian
   proposals, it is suppose to be a 5+2 proposal and be signed off by
   Brussels. But that is not how the Germans and Russians are doing this,
   because they know no one in Washington or Brussels will sign off on this.
   So if they can simply get Moldova and TD to sign off, then it is done.
   Washington and Brussels will push on the 21st for this new agreement to go
   through them, but Berlin and Moscow don't care and won't agree.

    

   The US is really not happy about any of this, but is not willing to stand
   up to the Russian over Moldova at this time, because of the other issues
   (LG: Afgh) between Moscow and Washington. So the US is going to ask 3rd
   parties to go pressure the Moldovans - mainly the Lithuanians, Poles,
   Romanians and Brits. The Romanians won't be any help as they simply have
   given up really caring about Moldova. They know the US is their security
   guarantee, so why care if the Russians are next door-they have the US.

    

   So, this will all be discussed on the 21st meeting in Moscow. It isn't
   that Russia and Germany will get the deal then, but this is the start. Now
   it comes down to the Poles, Lithuanians, and Brits convincing Filat that
   this is suicide.

    

    

    

    

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-06-16 20:40:23",1,"2012-03-05 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/80990_-alpha-insight-russian-and-german-deal-over-moldova-.html","clint.richards@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
81107,"[alpha] DHS - Sinaloa Drug Cartel Reference Guide
","     This document is part of a collection leaked by the anonymous hacker
     collective known as LulzSec.

     * 9 pages
     * For Official Use Only
     * Law Enforcement Sensitive
     * October 28, 2010
   --
   Cordially,
    
   David Dafinoiu
   President
    
   NorAm Intelligence
   Mobile: 646-678-2905
   david@dafinoiu.com
   dd@noramintel.com
   http://noramintel.com

   --
   Cordially,
    
   David Dafinoiu
   President
   NorAm Intelligence
   Mobile: 646-678-2905
   david@dafinoiu.com
   dd@noramintel.com
   http://noramintel.com
    
   
   The information contained in this facsimile or electronic message is
   confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity
   named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
   or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
   intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, or
   copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If this message
   contains non-public personal information about any consumer or customer of
   the sender or intended recipient, you are further prohibited under penalty
   of law from using or disclosing the information to any third party by
   provisions of the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. If you have received
   this facsimile or electronic message in error, please immediately notify
   us by telephone or email and return or destroy the original message to
   assure that it is not read, copied, or distributed by others.
","2011-06-25 13:13:02",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/81107_-alpha-dhs-sinaloa-drug-cartel-reference-guide-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com","attach/10/10296_DHS - Mexico_T.pdf"
84934,"Re: The Business of Stratfor
","50","2011-07-05 01:15:30",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/84934_re-the-business-of-stratfor-.html","victoria.allen@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com,friedman@att.blackberry.net","attach/10/10516_The Business of STRATFOR.docx"
86916,"Re: Argentina and Falklands
","   Thanks, Allison. Can you try to verify whether this has congressional
   backing and see how shipping traffic actually passes through this are?
   Does the falkland dispute actually resonate among the populace?
   Sent from my iPhone
   On Feb 17, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Allison Fedirka
   <allison.fedirka@stratfor.com> wrote:

     My take on the issue is along the lines of what you are thinking - a
     distraction from internal issues.  Throughout the year you will hear the
     Argentine government talk up the Falklands - to them the issue never was
     resolved in 82.  You'll hear it come in to the news at the beginning of
     April (dia de las Malvinas) and whenever there is a big official visit
     between the UK/Argie.  For example when CK went to the UK for the g20
     she vowed to bring it up.  I also have to say that it is still a bit of
     a sore spot for Argentines.... many of them still believe that the
     islands should rightfully be theirs (as they appear in all national maps
     along with Antarctica). 

     Right now there's all sorts of slander going around in the press with
     scandals everywhere - the Kirchners making money illegally, the
     Kirchners buying millions of dollars, the govt's use of DNU, govt trying
     to bypass the Congress and use the reserves to pay part of the debt
     anyways, electricity supply/flooding problems in the North, meat/food
     prices and general inflation, farmer and export taxes or aid, people
     wanting more money for social plans or better distribution of social
     plans.  These are the things in the headlines every day or every other
     day.

     It is interesting that they made the rule about requiring permits to go
     there.  If the govt issues permits, there's no telling when they will
     get issued.  Also, it's a decree which means it was CK's decision and
     she doesn't necessarily have Congress's backing.  The opposition is
     trying to revisit the issue of Presidential decrees and this is one of
     many that fall in to that category.  I'm not sure how much that affects
     the Brits - if they frequently use Argentine ports or pass through
     Argentine waters.... and if they do, how easily it can be avoided (say
     with a shift to Montevideo port or just going around Arg waters).

       Hey Allison,
       Can you please explain to me what is driving Argentina to escalate the
       Falklands dispute right now?  is this just to distract from internal
       issues, something more?

              Argentina escalates row with Britain over Falklands

       <mime-attachment.png>
         * Buzz up!7 votes
         * Send
         * Share
         * Print
       <mime-attachment.jpg>AFP a** File photo of tourists walking in
       Stanley, Falkland Islands. Argentina escalated a row with Britain
       over a*|
         * <mime-attachment.jpg>Play VideoEnergy & Oil Video:Jim LaCamp Talks
           Oil Prices & Job Market CBS 11 Dallas
         * <mime-attachment.jpg>Play VideoEnergy & Oil Video:Gas Explosion
           Damages House In West Denver CBS4 Denver
         * <mime-attachment.jpg>Play VideoEnergy & Oil Video:AP Top
           Stories AP
       by Oscar Laski a** Tue Feb 16, 11:06 pm ET
       BUENOS AIRES (AFP) a** Argentina escalated a row with Britain overoil
       drilling in the Falklands by ordering all ships heading to the
       disputed islands through its waters to seek permission from Buenos
       Aires first.
       Argentine President Cristina Kirchner signed the decree, ratcheting up
       tensions between Argentina and Britain over Las Malvinas, the Spanish
       name for the islands they warred over in 1982 at the cost of almost
       1,000 lives.
       \"All ships that wish to move between ports in continental Argentina
       and ports in the Malvinas islands, or that wish to cross
       Argentineterritorial waters as they head to the islands\" require prior
       permission, it said.
       Kirchner's chief of staff Anibal Fernandez left no doubt the move was
       intended to clamp down on shipping that might be helping Britain as it
       launches operations to explore the region's oil and mineral reserves.
       The decree seeks to achieve \"not only a defense of Argentine
       sovereignty but also of all the resources\" in the area, Fernandez
       explained, adding that a high-level permanent committee would be set
       up to monitor the shipping.
       Anger in Argentina over the Falklands, which has bubbled below the
       surface for much of the last three decades, has threatened to boil
       over in recent months as Britain prepares to launch drilling
       operations.
       Argentina has lodged a protest with London about drilling in the
       seabed around the windswept islands, which contains up to 60 billion
       barrels of oil, according to geological studies quoted in the British
       media.
       A tug boat hauling a British exploration rig will arrive any day to
       start oil prospecting and the issue already came to a head earlier
       this month when Buenos Aires blocked a shipment of pipes it said was
       bound for the Falklands.
       Argentine authorities boarded the foreign flagged \"Thor Leader\" in the
       southern port of Campana after learning it was about to take on a
       cargo of pipes used in the oil industry and apparently destined for
       the Falklands.
       Buenos Aires is furious that London continues to skirt UN resolutions
       calling on both governments to renew a dialogue on the sovereignty of
       the Falklands.
       \"We wish to reaffirm the obligation to resolve the differences between
       Britain and us in the framework of international law and United
       Nations resolutions,\" Kirchner said on Tuesday.
       Britain in January rejected Argentina's latest claim to the islands,
       which it has held and occupied since 1833.
       The Foreign Office in London sought to play down Argentina's latest
       move in the row by issuing a bland statement, pointing out the obvious
       about the legal position.
       \"Regulations governing Argentine territorial waters are a matter for
       the Argentine authorities. This does not affect Falkland
       Islands territorial waters which are controlled by the island
       authorities,\" a statement said.
       It said Argentina and Britain were \"important partners\" and pledged to
       \"cooperate\" on issues in the South Atlantic, where the Falklands are
       located.
       Buenos Aires has urged a solution along the lines of what Britain
       agreed for the Chinese territory of Hong Kong.
       Britain and Argentina's rival claims of ownership over the Falklands
       exploded into war in 1982 after Argentine military rulers seized the
       islands, only to be defeated and expelled by a British naval force.
       The conflict lasted 74 days and cost the lives of 649 Argentine
       soldiers and 255 from Britain.
","2010-02-17 18:20:11",1,"2012-02-27 22:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/86916_re-argentina-and-falklands-.html","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com","","allison.fedirka@stratfor.com",""
89233,"[alpha] INSIGHT - CHINA/AUS - Farmland & SOEs - CN65
","   *Questions/responses welcomed.

   SOURCE: CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

   There is an issue flaring up over Chinese SOEs being rural properties in
   Australia.  The issue has principally arisen as a result of some fairly
   outrageous claims by the Greens in Australia.  
   You might not be aware that the Greens have taken the balance of power in
   the Senate here. They are now running around claiming that there is a huge
   takeover of rural land in Australia by foreigners.
   There is now gong to be a Senate Inquiry into foreign investment in
   agriculture.
   Key to this is the fact that Shenhua has spent A$200 million buying 43
   properties over and surrounding its Watermark coal project in the Upper
   Hunter Valley.  The reason for this is that if they buy the properties,
   they don't have to worry about dealing with the landholders over
   environmental issues.  (Landowners in Australia don't own the minerals in
   the ground, whereas in the US they do.  So you can theoretically mine on
   someone else's land, but you have to deal with them in regulated ways in
   regards to environmental impacts.)
   The National Farmers Federation has said today on ABC News Television that
   there is a need to distinguish between foreign ownership of rural
   properties per se, and the mining versus agriculture debate.  The latter,
   he said, was about the long term sustainability of properties.
   The NFF position is that foreign investment has been critical to enabling
   Australia to stay at the head of the world on agricultural productivity.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com


 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19
","2011-07-13 15:27:26",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/89233_-alpha-insight-china-aus-farmland-and-soes-cn65-.html","ben.preisler@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
92057,"Re: Greetings from Washington, DC
","   Mr. Kenes,
   My schedule changed again, and it looks like I will be available to meet
   you at 3pm today. I will also have my assistant, Emre Dogru, with me.
   Looking forward to meeting you.
   Best,
   Reva

   Sent from my iPhone
   On Mar 7, 2010, at 5:19 PM, BA 1/4lent KeneAA* <b.kenes@todayszaman.com>
   wrote:

     Dear Miss. Bhalla,

      

     I will be at the office at 3 pm on Monday. It will be a great pleasure
     for me to have a cup of coffee with youa*|

      

     If it is suitable for you, please confirm that you will visit our
     officea*|

      

     Best,

     BA 1/4lent KeneAA*              
     Today's Zaman                   
                                     
                                     
     Editor-in-Chief                 
                                     
     Tel     (212)                   
     Faks    (212)                   
     E-posta b.kenes@todayszaman.com 

      

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Reva Bhalla [mailto:reva.bhalla@stratfor.com]
     Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2010 7:32 PM
     To: BA 1/4lent KeneAA*
     Subject: Greetings from Washington, DC

      

     Dear Mr. Kenes,

      

     I met your colleague, Ali Aslan, last week in DC, where I am based as an
     analyst for STRATFOR. I told him that I'll be in Istanbul this week and
     he strongly recommended that I get in touch with you. If you are
     available some time early in the week (Monday, the 8th, perhaps?) to
     meet, please let me know. I've been working on Turkey issues for a while
     and your publication does very important work. It would be great to sit
     down and chat with you if you have some time.

      

     All the best,

      

     Reva Bhalla

     Director of Analysis

     STRATFOR

     www.stratfor.com

     Director of Analysis

     Senior Analyst for Middle East, South Asia and Latin America

     +1 (512) 699-8385

      
","2010-03-08 09:50:51",1,"2012-03-03 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/92057_re-greetings-from-washington-dc-.html","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com","","b.kenes@todayszaman.com",""
92666,"Re: Will be visiting Zaman office today
","   Dear Hamit,
   It was delightful to meet you today. Thank you again for taking the time
   and for being so open. I learned a lot from our meeting, and it is my hope
   that we can continue a cooperative dialogue. Will be in touch soon.
   All the best,
   Reva
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: \"Abdulhamit Bilici\" <A.Bilici@cihan.com.tr>
   To: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, March 8, 2010 4:53:15 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
   Subject: Re: Will be visiting Zaman office today

   Dear Reva Bhalla,
   If it is ok for you, we can chat together. 
   best regards
   hamit
    
   On 08.Mar.2010, at 12:34, Reva Bhalla wrote:

     Dear Mr. Bilici,
     I will be meeting your colleague from Today's Zaman, Bulent Kenes, today
     at your main office at 3pm. If you are available any time after that, I
     would love to meet you while I am there.
     Best,
     Reva Bhalla
     Director of Analysis
     STRATFOR
     www.stratfor.com
     Director of Analysis
     Senior Analyst for Middle East, South Asia and Latin America
     +1 (512) 699-8385 (mobile)
     On Mar 6, 2010, at 11:30 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

       Dear Mr. Bilici,
       I met your colleague, Ali Aslan, last week in DC, where I am based as
       an analyst for STRATFOR. I told him that I'll be in Istanbul this week
       and he strongly recommended that I get in touch with you. If you are
       available some time early in the week (Monday, the 8th, perhaps?) to
       meet, please let me know. I've been working on Turkey issues for a
       while and your publication does very important work. It would be great
       to sit down and chat with you if you have some time.
       All the best,
       Reva Bhalla
       Director of Analysis
       STRATFOR
       www.stratfor.com
       Director of Analysis
       Senior Analyst for Middle East, South Asia and Latin America
       +1 (512) 699-8385

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   YASAL UYARI: Bu e-posta'nA:+-n iAS:erdiA:*i bilgiler (ekleri de dahil
   olmak A 1/4zere) gizlidir. Cihan Haber AjansA:+-'nA:+-n onayA:+-
   olmaksA:+-zA:+-n iAS:eriA:*i kopyalanamaz, A 1/4AS:A 1/4ncA 1/4 kiAA*ilere
   aAS:A:+-klanamaz veya iletilemez . Bu mesajA:+-n gAP:nderilmek istendiA:*i
   kiAA*i deA:*ilseniz (ya da bu e-postaa**yA:+- yanlA:+-AA*lA:+-kla
   aldA:+-ysanA:+-z), lA 1/4tfen yollayan kiAA*iyi haberdar ediniz ve
   mesajA:+- sisteminizden derhal siliniz. Cihan Haber AjansA:+-, bu
   mesajA:+-n iAS:erdiA:*i bilgilerin doA:*ruluA:*u veya eksiksiz olduA:*u
   konusunda bir garanti vermemektedir. Bu nedenle, bilgilerin ne AA*ekilde
   olursa olsun iAS:eriA:*inden, iletilmesinden, alA:+-nmasA:+-ndan,
   saklanmasA:+-ndan Cihan Haber AjansA:+- sorumlu deA:*ildir. Bu mesajA:+-n
   iAS:eriA:*i yazarA:+-na ait olup, Cihan Haber AjansA:+- 'nA:+-n gAP:rA
   1/4AA*lerini iAS:ermeyebilir. Bu e-posta bizce bilinen tA 1/4m bilgisayar
   virA 1/4slerine karsA:+- taranmA:+-AA*tA:+-r.

   DISCLAIMER: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain
   confidential and/or privileged information. Copying, disclosure or
   distribution of the material in this e-mail without our Cihan News
   Agencya**s authority is strictly forbidden. If you are not the intended
   recipient (or have received this e-mail in error), please notify the
   sender immediately. Cihan News Agency makes
   no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of any information
   contained in this message and hereby excludes any liability of any kind
   for the information contained therein or for the information transmission,
   reception, storage or use of such in any way whatsoever. Any opinions
   expressed in this message are those of the author and may not necessarily
   reflect the opinions of Cihan News Agency. This e-mail has been scanned
   for all computer viruses known to us.
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-03-03 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/92666_re-will-be-visiting-zaman-office-today-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","","A.Bilici@cihan.com.tr",""
97882,"Re: [alpha] sourcing insight
","   I think you should make responsiveness a separate category. Like we do
   with our red, orange, yellow classifications during source list reviews.
   That is responsiveness/accessibility, and it is distinct from
   reliability. 
   From: Jennifer Richmond <richmond@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:05:28 -0500
   To: <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] sourcing insight
   As Stick said earlier, you can have a reliable source that is highly
   responsive that sometimes sends crap.  Item credibility is the place where
   you assess the information, and this changes from insight to insight. 
   Reliability is more about source responsiveness.  That said, and as Stick
   notes, reliability also speaks to the overall source's access to
   information as well as dependability.  In part some of this should also be
   addressed in the source description.

   We'll be fleshing these out a bit more in the next few weeks, and all
   suggestions are welcomed.

   On 7/29/11 2:51 PM, Kamran Bokhari wrote:

     My understanding of source reliability has always been the contact's
     personal reliability as a person who can provide accurate information.
     On 7/29/11 2:54 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

       Sending to the list since these are good questions.  My responses in
       red.

       On 7/29/11 1:48 PM, Allison Fedirka wrote:

         I have 2 questions on this item.
         SOURCE RELIABILITY: A-F, A being the best and F being the worst.
          this
         grades the turnaround time of this source in responding to requests

         1) If this is based solely on turn around time, do we have company
         standards for the letters.  Like A = a couple of hours, D = a couple
         of weeks, etc?  We do need to better identify what each letter
         means.  In the meantime, in my book A=within 24 hours, B=48 hours,
         C=a couple of days, D=over a week, F=lucky if we get a response
         2) Also I previously thought this item reflected both reliability in
         turn around time and also reliability to give good information.  So
         like if someone was obviously anti-chavez or exaggerates a lot, I
         would bump them down a bit since the insight should be taken with a
         grain of salt.  How do you want us to inform others of potential
         bias or questionable material?  In the description section? It is
         mainly addresses their reliability to respond.  ITEM CREDIBILITY is
         the place where we code the information.  In most cases this changes
         from insight to insight whereas SOURCE RELIABILITY is a little more
         static.  Some sources know nothing about politics but give excellent
         info on econ.  So, credibilty changes frequently even with the same
         source and one of the reasons why we need to keep up with the entire
         ID tags when sending in insight.  As to the last question, I usually
         make a note of their bias for a particular insight in the
         credibility section.  In the description section you can write out
         their personal biases - e.g. the dude only hangs with the wealthy so
         this insight is likely to be skewed towards elite perceptions, or
         something like that. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: \"Jennifer Richmond\" <richmond@stratfor.com>
         To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
         Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 1:41:39 PM
         Subject: [alpha] sourcing insight

         We've gotten lazy on insight source IDs again.  Not only do you need
         to
         put the source code in the subject line, but all of these categories
         need to be filled out for every single insight sent to the list.

         SOURCE: code
         ATTRIBUTION: this is what we should say if we use this info in a
         publication, e.g. STRATFOR source/source in the medical
         industry/source
         on the ground, etc
         SOURCE DESCRIPTION: this is where we put the more concrete details
         of
         the source for our internal consumption so we can better understand
         the
         source's background and ability to make the assessments in the
         insight
         PUBLICATION: Yes or no.  If you put yes it doesn't mean that we will
         publish it, but only that we can publish it.
         SOURCE RELIABILITY: A-F, A being the best and F being the worst.
          this
         grades the turnaround time of this source in responding to requests
         ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1-10, 1 being the best and 10 being the worst (we
         may
         change the range here in the future).  this changes a lot based on
         the
         info provided.  1 is \"you can take this to the bank\" and 10 would be
         an
         example of maybe - \"this is a totally ridiculous rumor but something
         that is spreading on the ground\"
         SPECIAL HANDLING: often this is \"none\" but it may be something like,
         \"if
         you use this we need to be sure not to mention the part about XXX in
         the
         publication\" or any other special notes
         SOURCE HANDLER: the person who can take follow-up questions and
         communicate with the source

         If you have any questions, concerns or suggestions, let me know.
          I'll
         be back in the office next Tues so if you want to discuss this
         process
         in person we can do so soon.  In the meantime, remember that every
         piece
         of insight needs this ENTIRE ID unless it is just something that you
         picked up off the ground from a source that you will likely not hear
         from again.  Even then, you should fill out the entire ID and in the
         SOURCE field simply say - n/a with a description on why we are not
         coding them.

         Jen
         PS: Also remember that is something is highly sensitive to send
         directly
         - not thru a WO - to the \"secure\" list.  Secure list insights still
         need
         the above ID tags.

         --
         Jennifer Richmond
         STRATFOR
         China Director
         Director of International Projects
         (512) 422-9335
         richmond@stratfor.com
         www.stratfor.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.comwww.stratfor.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.comwww.stratfor.com
","2011-07-29 22:08:01",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/97882_re-alpha-sourcing-insight-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
97900,"Re: [alpha] sourcing insight
","   Ok, good question.

   The secure list is not supposed to have anyone overseas on it.  (And as a
   side note, if you are traveling overseas you need to get yourself off this
   list while out of the country.)  We have many WOs overseas and so when we
   send something to secure it is just one more way we are trying to protect
   sourcing by not having it sent over international wires (yes, of course,
   there are many ways that foreigners can access any insight sent from
   anywhere at anytime, but it is somewhat more secure when we email only
   within CONUS).  So either a source or insight that is highly sensitive
   needs to go to the secure list only, and that means that we send it in
   ourselves because the overseas WOs won't be able to pick it up.

   Alpha goes to analysts/writers (and the few others selected on this list)
   and not ADPs or Interns, including to analysts/writers overseas.

   On 7/29/11 1:50 PM, Lauren Goodrich wrote:

     your last line in the P.S.... said to send things directly to secure...
     I wanted to know if that meant only to secure or to alpha too.
     I think there is still some confusion over which list is which.
     On 7/29/11 1:47 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

       I don't understand your question.  This applies to both lists.  All
       sources need IDs (as mentioned in my PS - does that answer your
       question?).

       As to the question of sending from BBs, I definitely understand that
       issue.  When you return to your computer, please reply to the insight
       sent out with the full coding.  We need this info to really track
       insight and any changes over time.

       On 7/29/11 1:45 PM, Lauren Goodrich wrote:

         secure or alpha?

         On 7/29/11 1:41 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

 We've gotten lazy on insight source IDs again.  Not only do you need to
 put the source code in the subject line, but all of these categories
 need to be filled out for every single insight sent to the list.

 SOURCE: code
 ATTRIBUTION: this is what we should say if we use this info in a
 publication, e.g. STRATFOR source/source in the medical industry/source
 on the ground, etc
 SOURCE DESCRIPTION: this is where we put the more concrete details of
 the source for our internal consumption so we can better understand the
 source's background and ability to make the assessments in the insight
 PUBLICATION: Yes or no.  If you put yes it doesn't mean that we will
 publish it, but only that we can publish it.
 SOURCE RELIABILITY: A-F, A being the best and F being the worst.  this
 grades the turnaround time of this source in responding to requests
 ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1-10, 1 being the best and 10 being the worst (we may
 change the range here in the future).  this changes a lot based on the
 info provided.  1 is \"you can take this to the bank\" and 10 would be an
 example of maybe - \"this is a totally ridiculous rumor but something
 that is spreading on the ground\"
 SPECIAL HANDLING: often this is \"none\" but it may be something like, \"if
 you use this we need to be sure not to mention the part about XXX in the
 publication\" or any other special notes
 SOURCE HANDLER: the person who can take follow-up questions and
 communicate with the source

 If you have any questions, concerns or suggestions, let me know.  I'll
 be back in the office next Tues so if you want to discuss this process
 in person we can do so soon.  In the meantime, remember that every piece
 of insight needs this ENTIRE ID unless it is just something that you
 picked up off the ground from a source that you will likely not hear
 from again.  Even then, you should fill out the entire ID and in the
 SOURCE field simply say - n/a with a description on why we are not
 coding them.

 Jen
 PS: Also remember that is something is highly sensitive to send directly
 - not thru a WO - to the \"secure\" list.  Secure list insights still need
 the above ID tags.


         --
         Lauren Goodrich
         Senior Eurasia Analyst
         STRATFOR
         T: 512.744.4311
         F: 512.744.4334
         lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
         www.stratfor.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com


     --
     Lauren Goodrich
     Senior Eurasia Analyst
     STRATFOR
     T: 512.744.4311
     F: 512.744.4334
     lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
     www.stratfor.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-07-29 20:59:54",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/97900_re-alpha-sourcing-insight-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
98795,"[alpha] INSIGHT - PNG - New PM - via CN65
","   *I think they probably meant to type 07/31 but will double check with
   source.

   SOURCE: via CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

     Png has a new PM Peter O'Neil, opposition will form new gov 77/31
      

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19
","2011-08-02 13:42:21",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/98795_-alpha-insight-png-new-pm-via-cn65-.html","ben.preisler@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
100230,"[alpha] INSIGHT - PNG - Update - CN65
","    **If we care at all about writing on the PNG, this is unique insight that
   will be difficult to get elsewhere.  If we have a legit angle to write I
   would definitely do so and use this soon before it becomes common
   knowledge.

   SOURCE: CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources (also working with the PNG government on development
   projects)
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

   After a day and a half with my PNG chums, who were down for the Oxford
   dinner at the Sydney Opera House, I can now give you a summary of what
   happened in PNG.
   The then acting-PM, Sam Abal, and Foreign Minister, Don Polye, are both
   Engans (i.e. from Enga, a region in the Highlands).  Engans are
   notoriously fractious types.  Abal and Polye had a falling out, and it
   ripped apart the government.
   Everyone in the government got fed up with this, and it led to huge
   dissatisfaction.  On top of that, Abal moved to shift Peter O'Neill from
   the Treasury portfolio.  That was the catalyst for action.
   The other thing is that Somare has been absent from Parliament in
   Singapore getting medical treatment for more than 90 days.  They never got
   leave from Parliament, however, and this theoretically makes the PM's
   position vacant.
   A group of about four or five from the political class, led by one of our
   business associates (won't say who) helped put the numbers together for a
   change of government.  He aid the concern was to not just get a majority,
   but a thumping majority so the government would be able to move forward
   with confidence.
   The cabinet is being put together by the weekend.  The three candidates
   for Treasurer are Sir Puka Temu, Bart Philemon, and Sir Mekere Morauta.
    Word is that it with be either Puka or Mekere.  Mekere would be
   fantastic.  He is a former PM, has gravitas, and is very smart.
   Abal is going to the High Court claiming the motion of no confidence was
   unconstitutional. It won't make much difference.  O'Neill has the numbers
   to run the motion again if there is any problem with the proceedings in
   Parliament.  He will out in the end.
   Next item of business will be sorting out the status of Sir Michael
   Somare.
   I think there will be much more stability until next year's election, even
   if the PM is no cleaner than his predecessor.  That is a step in the right
   direction up there.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com


 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19
","2011-08-04 14:04:27",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/100230_-alpha-insight-png-update-cn65-.html","ben.preisler@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
107541,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Concerns over military dissent,
 PdVSA reshuffling rumors - VZ301
","   am also following up with the source on who within the upper military
   ranks is asking Chavez to step donw

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Korena Zucha\" <zucha@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 9:46:15 AM
   Subject: Re: Fwd: [alpha] INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Concerns over military
   dissent, PdVSA reshuffling rumors - VZ301

   got it, thanks.

   On 8/15/11 9:45 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

     wanted to make sure you saw this

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Benjamin Preisler\" <ben.preisler@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 9:20:53 AM
     Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Concerns over military dissent,
     PdVSA reshuffling rumors - VZ301

     SOURCE: VZ301
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: well-connected source in Caracas
     PUBLICATION: Yes - these are responses to a client question
     SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
     SPECIAL HANDLING: send to Alpha and Korena Zucha
     SOURCE HANDLER: Reva

     Q tal?  Any news on the Ramirez/Maduro PdVSA rumors we were chatting
     about earlier? 

     (referring to rumors that PdVSA president Rafael Ramirez will soon be
     replaced by FM Nicolas Maduro)

      

     I was checking up last night.  It is something that has been discussed
     and was a**filtereda** by a credible source.

      

     However, it is not something that is going to happen right now.  The
     issue is that el presidente is very aware of the fact that RR has been
     lying to him.

      

      

     client question-

     Hey there are a bunch of noises coming from the military and chavez this
     week about military loyalty and subversion by the oppositions of the
     military under the Imperial Direction (guess who).

      

     This stuff is important and getting a lot of press in the papers.

      

     First, a**dona**t trust statementsa**.

      

     I should add that in our specific situation things are not pure black or
     pure white.  We have a lot of a**nuancesa**.  Military are not a solid
     block like Chavism is not a solid and homogeneus block either.

     Within the military, you have the ones that have very much benefited by
     the Presidente (former companions of promotion or coup da**A(c)tat
     pals).

     High ranks that have enjoyed the economic benefits of this
     administration tend to be really concerned. 

     A.     They need to enjoy their fortunes here, where else can they go to
     make so much money?  So, they can either:

     A.     Try to scare the opposition, what they are doing through
     statements and threats.

     A.     They can negotiate a*| what some of them are already doing.

      

     Another group within the Army Forces are those that have expressed
     discomfort by the presence and power of Cubans within the military
     establishment.

      

     You have as well the military sector that favors right and not left
     political approaches.

      

      

     Something is up:

      

     1)   the opp has no hooks in the military so that is a lie

      

     Military reactions are not really so tied to opp hooks. This is what HCF
     makes believe through his statements.   There are enough reasons to find
     unrest within the military as to think they need to be a**enchanted by
     the oppa**.  This doesna**t mean that opp is not capitalizing the
     discomfort.

      

     2)   if there is a loyalty issue its internal

      

     Yes, there is an internal loyalty issue.  Tiredness, Fear of future and
     of losing privileges.

      

     3)   The military said they would only recognize ChA!vez, as the C&C so
     guess the Constitution and the 2012 elections are a moot point!

      

     This is the a**scary manipulative speecha*|. But people dona**t buy this
     so easily.  There is more concern for potential militias reactions
     (untrained and fanatics).

      

     4) Chavez just announced 2 B in loans for more guns BECAUSE HE WILL NEED
     A STRONG MILITARY FROM 2013 TO 2020!

      

     What is going on and why now when Chavez is suppose to be on the mend
     and his popularity is up and he has more access to $$$ enhancing
     fluidity of capital?

      

     He needs to keep the idea that the country is going to be invaded.  He
     needs to keep in the popular imaginary that we need to get ready to
     defend the fatherland from the enemy.  That helps him to keep his
     follower a**togethera**. 

      

     Why all the fuss?

      

     HCF is worried.  Unrest in military barracks is a fact.  Rumors that
     some high ranks military might have asked the Presidente. to withdraw
     from office due to his illness, are spreading since last week.  As I
     said before, they dona**t want to lose his a**power sharea**.

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-03-01 04:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/107541_re-alpha-insight-venezuela-concerns-over-military-dissent.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","","zucha@stratfor.com",""
113138,"[alpha] INSIGHT - AUSTRALIA/CHINA - Iron Ore Prices - via CN65
","   SOURCE: via CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: A
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

     Iron Ore Prices

     Further mine earlier, which quotes paper for Indian or
     Brazilian 63.5/63% delivered China.

     Please note the following report on Physical prices, which
     shows paper is lagging physical by quite a margin.

     This report also underscores 'with facts' my ongoing views
     as to The reality of what is happening in China with steel
     production, contrary to the Rhetoric going around about a
     Chinese Slowdown.

     Bad news for China and all steel producers struggling to
     pass on margins due to increasing steel production costs
     but very good news for all Iron ore producers.

     PHYSICAL MARKET

     The physical market remained firm on Wednesday, with
     activity improved and trades/tenders at around last done
     levels. Platts reported Australian 61.5% Fe Pilbara fines
     trading at $178.50/dmt CFR Qingdao compared to $178/dmt
     CFR North China on Tuesday.

     Meanwhile, TSI reported Brazilian 63.5/63% Fe fines
     and 65/64% Fe fines trading at $183/dmt and $193.50/dmt
     (CFR China) respectively.

     Indian 63.5/63% Fe fines were also reported done at
     $189-$190/dmt. The TSI, Platts and Metal Bulletin indices
     were all marked a touch higher:

     TSI 62% (3.5% Al):   $178.30 (up $0.40)       
     PLATTS 62%:   $180.25 (up $0.50)             
     MBIOI 62%:   $178.31 (up $0.54)
     TSI 62% (2.0% Al):   $180.80 (up $0.40)

     Spot iron ore prices held firm on Wednesday, as strong
     steel output in top producer China kept buying interest
     for the raw material intact, with tight Indian supplies
     lending support, reports Reuters. An iron ore trader in
     Singapore, citing factors supporting prices, said \"The
     Chinese continue to produce steel like crazy andIndian
     supplies are extremely tight at the moment, \" Reuters added.

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19
","2011-08-25 12:47:14",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/113138_-alpha-insight-australia-china-iron-ore-prices-via-cn65-.html","ben.preisler@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
116613,"[alpha] INSIGHT - CN65 Re: DISPATCH PROPOSAL/DISCUSSION - The
 problems with Cosco and its	bigger implications
","   **Source helped me to flesh out some of the comments on the piece and
   says:
   Please see my comments in red.  I know my stuff here.  I specialised in
   shipping law at Oxford, and I have been talking to my shipbroker about the
   matter in the last few days.  My shipbroker is in one of the biggest
   broking firms in the world, and he specialises in capesize dry bulk.  I
   reckon he know's his stuff also.
   SOURCE: via CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: A
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

           Navios Maritime partners is currently in the midst of a contract

           dispute with China's shipping company, Cosco.  The recent dispute

           has resulting in the seizure of at least three Cosco ships in

           various ports worldwide.

           Cosco is accused of withholding charter payments for ships that it

           chartered long-term for upwards of $80,000 per day during the

           dry-bulk shipping boom in 2008.  The current average spot-market

           rates to charter capesize vessels are a little under $17,000.

           Moody's has said that any downward negotiation of contracted
           charter

           rates would negatively affect dry bulk shipowners worldwide.

           According to Moody's any renegotiation of contracts could set a
           bad

           precedent for other Chinese companies.*drop the moody's reference
           -

           irrelevant*  I think Moody's are right.  It adds risk for all the
           companies that build and own ships but bareboat charter them.
            You've seen the stats I've sent you on the number and total dwt
           of the capesize fleet world wide.  A large number of these are on
           bareboat charter.  That is a real risk for the financial viability
           of the shipping sector, especially given that capesize rates are
           close to opex at the moment.

           Why does this matter?

           According to intelligence gathered from the coal industry that

           frequently uses Cosco's services, one of the most fundamental
           points

           about shipping law is that it is \"black letter law\", meaning that

           the contracts are inviolable.*er...its a nice thought but these

           rates change all the time -- what's important is that they not

           change during a sail*  Charter rates vary daily on the spot market
           for time charters, that is chartering a ship to take a stem from
           one port to another.  They are fixed at the time the ship is
           contracted.  However, the ships Cosco chartered are bareboat
           charters, not time charters, and the charter rates were set years
           ago for the duration of the charter.  If you don't own your own
           ships, but bareboat charter them, you have two types of risk:
           business risk in getting sufficient stems and back loads to make
           the ship profitable on opex; and the risk that the spread between
           your bareboat charter rate and the time charter rate doesn't move
           against you as it did in this case with Cosco.  They're screwed.

           For China in particular this could have important implications

           beyond just their shipping industry, and could affect Chinese

           sovereign risk.  Some foreign commodity traders have already begun

           to refuse sourcing requests from Chinese *shipping? *companies to

           protect their reputations.*am i understanding that? they're
           refusing

           to use chinese ships?*  The broader sovereign risk issue is why
           buyers like Rizhao are being locked out of the iron ore market in
           Australia, as well as a host of smaller companies which have not
           defaulted, but which are assessed as possibly likely to do so.  On
           the shipping front, the concern I mentioned came from the
           representative of a Chinese buyer who has chartered Cosco to take
           a stem from Gladstone to Xiamen is real.  If Cosco's ship turns up
           and is arrested, the buyer is liable to the seller for the failure
           to meet the terms of the contract and present a ship \"ready to
           load\" Gladstone.  They may not charter Cosco again until they get
           a clean bill of health.  If other Chinese shippers take this
           approach, then there will be real queries in the market about
           Chinese ship operators.  In the iron ore market the sellers are
           also selling C&F, so why would they take the risk on a Chinese
           shipping company when they would be liable to the buyer if the
           shipment doesn't arrive?

           Both iron ore and coal companies already extract a \"China
           premium\",

           costing China daily for every shipment they receive. *what's the

           premium on? the commodities? the shipping rates?*  Not openly
           discussed, but probably a couple of dollars a tonne on iron ore.
            See my previous estimation of total cost. These issues

           started to really become apparent in 2009 in both the coal and
           iron

           ore industries.  And one source in the industry says that these

           issues probably cost China over a billion dollars in additional
           iron

           ore prices each year.*if its in the commodites themselves i'm not

           sure what this has to do with shipping?*  It is all about broad
           perceptions of sovereign risk.

           This example is just one of many that exhibits a growing wariness
           of

           doing business with China and enforcing legal agreements with

           Chinese companies is notoriously hard according to lawyers engaged

           in the business.

           However, if China can continue to sweeten deals with cheap
           capital,

           there are many international businesses that will continue to
           assume

           the risks, until the stakes outweigh the benefits.

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19
","2011-09-01 14:25:14",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/116613_-alpha-insight-cn65-re-dispatch-proposal-discussion-the.html","ben.preisler@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
117802,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - CZECH REPUBLIC - BMD, US, Russia,
 military & more - CZ103 & CZ104
","   yea, the CzRs are nervous about someone like McFaul messing it up.
   btw, he was at the dinner I went to last night... the Uzbeks were falling
   all over themselves to speak with him.
   On 9/2/11 2:01 PM, Eugene Chausovsky wrote:

     This is fascinating stuff. You can how much the C. Europeans want the
     Intermarium to materialize, all with the explicit backing of the US.

     The question is how willing with the US be to go along with this F-16
     plan...

     On 9/2/11 12:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

       Link: themeData

        

       CzR = Czech Republic

        

       CODE: CZ103 & 104
       PUBLICATION: yes 
       ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in Prague/Washington
       SOURCE DESCRIPTION: 

       103 - Deputy to the Czech Ambassador; moving in Oct to be deputy FM

       104 - Czech security attache

       (Ambassador stopped in for a few min)

       SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
       ITEM CREDIBILITY: 3
       DISSEMINATION: Alpha
       HANDLER: Lauren

        

        

       The CEs need NATO. Plain and simple. They need a functional NATO. And
       they need NATO to return to its primary focus-containment of the large
       threat (Russia), and protection of the NATO land (them). Containment
       has to be the primary focus for NATO. No matter who you are, if you're
       in NATO, you need to understand this.

       CzR doesn't see NATO doing this with tanks, like before. It will do
       this with missile defense and military projects (F16s-see below).
       Planting NATO's flag on CE soil. So that Russia cannot do that
       instead.

        

       Yes, NATO has lost its focus with the wars, but BMD and such can unite
       and refocus NATO once again.

        

       BMD

        

       CzR wants a role in missile defense. This cannot be stressed enough.
       The announcement under Obama to give bmd to others obliterated the
       Czech-US relationship-it is non-existent now.

        

       Now this may seem contrary to what has been in the media, but everyone
       has it wrong on what actually happened in the Czech-US bmd
       negotiations under Bush. To start with, no one is/was straightforward
       in the negotiations. Yes, it is understandable that the US keeps their
       plans secret, but not when you are suppose to have a partner in the
       negotiations.

        

       So here is how it played out: Bush's team came to CzR and proposed for
       the country to be part of the \"bmd system\". That was all they said.
       Some officials alluded that it would be the radar. In the Czech
       government, there was agreement that bmd was imperative. But every
       piece of formal documentation from the US was incredibly vague and
       didn't spell out what would actually be coming into CzR as part of the
       system. It was very strange and confusing. We had never done
       negotiations like this. So, we put off signing any document until we
       could know what exactly we were agreeing to. Why would we agree to be
       part of the bmd system, and not know what exactly that meant? Then
       they came to us and said that CzR would have to pay for its part of
       the system. We didn't have that sort of money at the time. It was a
       mess.

        

       Then the new plan came from Obama in 2009. Obama's plan didn't have
       the radar in Czech Republic anymore. Obama's team said that Czech
       Republic wasn't a \"priority\" for their administration and that other
       countries were more important to put the radar in-Romania, Turkey,
       Lithuania or others. Problem is that Romania says they have the deal,
       but they haven't had confirmation from the US on this. Turkey also
       thinks it has the deal, but it doesn't have confirmation either. No
       one knows who is getting the radar portion of the system. Everyone
       wants it. The Obama team then came to CzR and offered a \"piece\" of the
       bmd system. We were excited. But when we got the the formal proposal,
       it was for a \"bmd scientific research center\". This was simply
       unacceptable. This was not good enough for us. CzR needs US military
       on its soil, not a \"research\" center with no military and would have
       to be paid for by the Czechs anyway. Completely ridiculous. So we
       pulled out of any agreement to the current system.

        

       If the US came and said that radar would be put in CzR, we would agree
       immediately. But instead the US doesn't value CzR relationship at all.

        

       When CzR publicly pulled out of the current bmd system in June,
       Russian FM immediately called Czech FM and said that it appreciated
       the reconsideration. Czech FM said that it had nothing to do with
       Russia. That Russia hadn't intimidated it to change its stance,
       instead CzR was more fired up to \"retaliate\" against Russian
       aggression.

        

       As far as the current talks between the US and Russia on bmd, most of
       the CEs want to sabotage them. No one wants Russia in on bmd.
       Moreover, no one wants the US and Russia to be friendly. The US needs
       to quit with this reset-nonsense and move forward with a firm military
       strategy in CE. The CEs want to move against Russia, but can't do it
       alone.

        

       New CE Security Plan

        

       So if CzR can't get in the bmd system, there is another deal we will
       push for, as we are determined to get US military on our soil.

        

       CzR wants a batch of F-16s like Poland. It needs supersonic. It
       doesn't really want the new Grippen. CzR is begging the US right now
       for F-16s. The US said it would sell them, but at an exorbitant price.
       They are far too expensive for CzR who has had to slash some of their
       defense budget because of the financial crisis.

        

       Also, other countries who sell military equipment to CzR and the CEs
       do it within other deals, so it isn't just an expensive military deal.
       For example, the French sell things to CzR, but then purchase
       agricultural equipment from CzR in trade-all part of one deal (LG: I
       pointed out how the Russians do this all the time. Military trade for
       gold deals, etc). This creates a relationship more than just around
       one sector. The US hasn't done this.

        

       So the plan that CzR is now presenting is for 5 or 6 Central European
       countries to go in together and do a mass order of the F-16s in
       exchange for a discount by the US. It would be Romania, Slovakia,
       Hungary, Bulgaria and maybe more for Poland - for 85 or so F-16s. It
       would be interesting because then all of them could train together in
       one country and then set up a repair factory in another country. The
       countries would be tied together - and tied to the US. The US would
       need to have military on the ground to train the CEs. This is the best
       sort of security alliance between US and CEs.

        

       If CzR can't get bmd or the F16 deal, then it is done with any
       non-Eurasian commitments to NATO. Period. If CzR can get bmd or the
       F16s, then it will pretty much agree to any sort of military
       commitment the US wants anywhere in the world. That is the ultimatum.

        

       Germans

        

       CzR is really on a different page on most issues than Germany. But is
       on the same page as pretty much everything with the Poles. So the
       Poles and other Central Europeans are its true partners. The Germans
       are like toddlers in their defense strategy. They have been divided
       for so long, that they do not understand how to act inside of NATO.
       This is why they are nice to the Russians. It is the wrong strategy
       with them. The Germans think they can handle the Russians. They can't.
       Germany can't get the other NATO members to agree with it, so it only
       works bilaterally with the Russians, undermining NATO's focus.

        

       Other Alliances

        

       Nordic Alliance is a fascinating thing, but there is no plan for V4
       yet. Sure it'll have a battlegroup, but it'll be under the EU and not
       really going to flesh out without some \"outside\" help. V4 is
       overestimated in the US. There is no structure or command plan for it.
       It has been a painful process under the EU.

        

       Ukraine

        

       CzR is worried about Ukraine. It is so pro-Russian that there is a
       concern that it will militarize under the Moscow umbrella. Everyone in
       CE is concerned about this militarization.

        

       McFaul

        

       On McFaul: everyone in CE hates dealing with him. He is deluded. He
       believes that Russia can actually be pulled into being an ally with
       the US. McFaul wants to use Regan's gameplan. He constantly quotes
       Regan. On a sidenote, in McFaul's office there is a large (really
       large, like4x3) photo blown up above his desk of McFaul, Obama,
       Medvedev and Putin all sitting around the lunchtable smiling. However,
       the way I heard it was that McFaul was scared to death of Putin and
       stuttered the entire time.

       --
       Lauren Goodrich
       Senior Eurasia Analyst
       STRATFOR
       T: 512.744.4311
       F: 512.744.4334
       lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
       www.stratfor.com

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-02 22:31:54",1,"2012-02-27 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/117802_re-alpha-insight-czech-republic-bmd-us-russia-military-and.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
118334,"Re: reva & kamran Fwd: Re: Source/confed opp in Beirut
","   We are looking for a confed partner.  If ME1 can facilitate a relationship
   with a media outlet in Lebanon, that would be great, but I'm not really
   looking to see if we have access to journos per se.

   On 9/6/11 11:19 AM, Kamran Bokhari wrote:

     I have heard of it but have not seen much from them.

     On 9/6/11 12:18 PM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

       i have not heard of this one, but keep in mind that we have journalist
       contacts (editors) for pretty much every Lebanese media agency of any
       significance via ME1

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       From: \"Jennifer Richmond\" <richmond@stratfor.com>
       To: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>, \"Kamran Bokhari\"
       <bokhari@stratfor.com>
       Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2011 10:03:09 AM
       Subject: reva & kamran Fwd: Re: Source/confed opp in Beirut

       Have either of you heard of this publication?

       -------- Original Message --------

       Subject: Re: Source/confed opp in Beirut           
          Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2011 09:21:41 -0500           
          From: kyle.rhodes <kyle.rhodes@stratfor.com>    
            To: Jennifer Richmond <richmond@stratfor.com> 
            CC: Confederation <confed@stratfor.com>       

       I've never heard of them and we've never done an interview with them
       to my knowledge. The only mention of us on their site is a repub of a
       Reuters article from last month featuring an interview with Kamran on
       Libya.

       Maybe send to Reva or Kamran to see if they know him?

       On 9/6/11 9:09 AM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

         Yes.  Do you have any background on this paper, Kyle?  Most
         definitely interested in expanding in the ME.

         On 9/6/2011 9:06 AM, kyle.rhodes wrote:

           Let me know if you're interested - I've not responded yet.

           -------- Original Message --------

           Subject: Request a Complimentary Media Account and Join your Media 
                    List                                                      
              Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2011 10:49:32 -0400                            
              From: Sylviane Zehil <sylviane@zehil.com>                       
                To: PR@STRATFOR.com                                           

           Dear Sir/Madam,

           I am writing you to request a Complimentary Media Account and Join
           your Media List.
           I am currently the New York and UN Bureau Chief for L'Orient Le
           Jour, a leading independent daily newspaper based in Beirut,
           Lebanon. I am interested in covering Middle East Issues.
           If you need further information I would be pleased to provide it
           to you.
           I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.
           Regards,
           Sylviane Zehil
           New York and UN Bureau Chief
           L'Orient Le Jour
           UN Room L-331 H
           (212) 963 52 36 (UN)
           (212) 529 91 36
           (917) 882 82 44 (cell)
           email: sylzehil@aol.com
           www.lorientlejour.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 richmond@stratfor.com
 (512) 744-4324
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Kyle Rhodes
 Public Relations Manager
 STRATFOR
 www.stratfor.com

 kyle.rhodes@stratfor.com
 +1.512.744.4309
 www.twitter.com/stratfor
 www.facebook.com/stratfor

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-06 20:22:53",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/118334_re-reva-and-kamran-fwd-re-source-confed-opp-in-beirut-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","","bhalla@stratfor.com,bokhari@stratfor.com,meredith@stratfor.com",""
122002,"Labor Day Review of Where We Are
","   THIS IS FOR INTERNAL STRATFOR USE ONLY. DO NOT SHARE THIS DOCUMENT OR
   DISCUSS IT OUTSIDE OF STRATFOR.

    

    

    

   I hope you've all had a great Labor Day Weekend. This Labor Day marks a
   turning point in Stratfor's history, and I wanted to share my thoughts
   with you and some plans. It used to be, not so long ago, that we were so
   small that information flowed to all hands by itself.  It is hard for me
   to recognize sometimes that this is no longer true, so I will provide an
   extensive review of where we are and what is coming.  Some of this will be
   old hat to some of you; some of this will be new.  This is an attempt to
   start getting everyone on the same page. 

    

   Historically, Stratfor was unique in a number of ways. First, we accepted
   no advertising. Second, we charged for our subscriptions. Finally, we were
   revenue driven. We build the company from our revenues.  This kept us
   independent, it kept us free to experiment-and at times fail, it kept us
   tight. We were reaching a point where we our revenues did not keep up with
   our needs and market opportunities.

    

   Shea Morenz provided us with two opportunities.  First, he made an
   investment in Stratfor designed to give us the capital needed to build our
   staff and our marketing.  Second, he proposed a new venture, StratCap,
   which would allow us to utilize the intelligence we were gathering about
   the world in a new but related venue-an investment fund. Where we had
   previously advised other hedge funds. We would now have our own, itself
   fully funded by Shea.  Shea invested over $2 million in Stratfor and more
   in StratCap. In return he took a seat on Stratfor's board and a minority
   position in Stratfor, whose control remains in Don's and my hands.  It was
   a good deal for Stratfor, a good deal for StratCap, and since the deal
   closed officially on August 1, we now have the task of doing what we all
   want-building Stratfor and StratCap.

    

   Our cash position is not spectacular by any means, but we have the
   resources to build the kind of company we want, when that investment is
   combined with our revenues.  With cash under control we need to address
   the next problem-people. We all are doing more than our share to keep
   things going.  In some ways that good but it can be overdone, and we are
   overdoing it throughout the company.  Our job now is to expand the team. 
   Money is one element of that, but relieving the pressure we are under in a
   way increases the pressure, because we have to recruit and train new
   people. So it gets harder before it gets easier, and that's the point we
   are at.

    

   Let's divide our departments into two groups.  There are those departments
   that must train their own people, particularly in intelligence beyond the
   normal training needed by new employees.  We do that because no one thinks
   of the world like Stratfor, and that means that we can't hire people from
   other organizations, or at least not without a major training programming,
   which in our experience lasts up to two years.  Then there are departments
   that don't have this burden and that can hire people readily from other
   organizations.  Both groups of departments must grow and train, but the
   burden of training is much heavier in the Intelligence departments that
   train their staff from the bottom up than on other departments.  It is
   important for everyone to understand this distinction.  It is not that
   people in Intelligence are more important or more valuable than those in
   other departments.  It just means they face different problems in growing
   and that if they don't grow, other things can't happen.

    

   Now let's consider the tasks ahead.  First and foremost-and always first
   and foremost-we must be the world's leading private intelligence
   organization (and one of the finest intelligence organizations, period)
   and we must sell our intelligence through publishing.  Our current staff
   has done an outstanding job, but they are thin and sometimes we are weak. 
   We must do better in economics, and we must make certain that no AOR
   depends on only one person. There are lots of things that are needed. 

    

   Second, we are committed to supporting StratCap, a private fund that will
   begin operations some time this coming spring. What StratCap will do is
   use our Stratfor's intelligence and analysis to trade in a range of
   geopolitical instruments, particularly government bonds, currency and the
   like in the world's emerging markets.  Shea Morenz initiated this idea and
   leads it.  At the root of StratCap is a simple idea: Stratfor should put
   its money where its mouth is.  It does not conflict with Stratfor, but is
   an extension of it.

    

   Do not think of StratCap as an outside organization.  It will be integral
   to Stratfor, in the sense that much of the intelligence we are developing
   is useful to Stratcap as well as Stratfor.  The organizational and legal
   distinctions are real and important, but StratCap is linked to Stratfor
   intellectually and contractually.  It will be useful to you if, for the
   sake of convenience, you think of it as another aspect of Stratfor and
   Shea as another executive in Stratfor. 

    

   Let me also add that it is our commitment that all our team will benefit
   if StratCap is successful through some mechanism to be defined. This isn't
   an attempt to get you to work harder for the same money.  But that
   discussion must wait until the legal and administrative relationships of
   StratCap and its relation to Stratfor are worked out and reviewed by
   something called \"compliance officers,\" people who make certain that we do
   not violate any regulations. 

    

   From that point of view, StratCap is something under construction.  You
   can see Shea Morenz hammering away building it in the corner office he
   took from Darryl. In the world of StratCap, corner offices are marketing
   tools.  This points to the fact that StratCap will be building its own
   staff and they come from a different world from Stratfor with a different
   culture.  That said, we have a great deal to learn from StratCap to
   strengthen Stratfor's understanding of economics and it has much to learn
   from us.  We are already working on mock portfolios and trades, testing
   our skills.  Kendra, Korena, Melissa, Jen, Peter, Meredith and myself are
   all involved in this along with Shea and Alfredo, a trader that makes us
   easy to understand compared to him. It's going pretty well in fact, but
   supporting StratCap will be a cultural and intellectual challenge.  It's
   important now to recognize that it is already here, growing and we will
   accommodate to it and it to us.

    

   I want to emphasize is that there is neither a legal, intellectual nor
   moral tension between Stratfor and StratCap.  We will continue to publish
   what we think is true.  StratCap is interested in our broad ideas but
   mostly in the obscure nuggets picked up by intelligence that are usually
   of little interest to our general readers.  My pledge to you and our
   readers is that our publication will remain untouched by StratCap-because
   they are merely different sides of the same coin, intelligence.

    

   We have also been asked to help the United States Marine Corps and other
   government intelligence organizations to teach them how Stratfor does what
   it does, and train them in becoming government Stratfors. We are beginning
   this project by preparing a three-year forecast for the Commandant of the
   Corps.  This is a double honor for us.  First, the professional
   intelligence community is acknowledging us as being the gold standard of
   intelligence.  Second, we are being asked to use our honest and unhedged
   views to support what is for Stratfor-an American company-its homeland. 
   Again, as with StratCap, there is no tension. We will tell the U.S.
   government precisely what we tell our readers and we think ourselves.  Our
   first lesson to the government is that intelligence organizations exist to
   make decision makers uncomfortable, not to make them feel better about
   their decisions. I didn't come this far to compromise on that. 

    

   Add to this that the fact that Turkish Chamber of Commerce (not its name
   but close enough; its name is TUSIAD) asked us to preside over their 40th
   anniversary celebration, and that the Turkish Foreign Minister and Energy
   Minister will speak at the event, and you can see both our global
   recognition and our commitment to speak the same words to every country.
   We can serve the world from the same platform.

    

   So think about it.  We have three triumphs.  First, our publication is now
   read by almost 300,000 people (counting our corporate accounts).  We are a
   major force around the world.  Second, Shea-a guy who has played with the
   big boys at Goldman Sachs, asked us to play in the majors with him. 
   Third, the USMC has asked for our help, and with them others in the
   defense community.  These are three validations of us that are precious to
   me.

    

   Obviously, there is no way in the world that we can do all these
   things-plus the endless little projects that we must do all the time-with
   the staff we have.  And given that we take two years to train new
   analysts, and all of this is on us now-we have an urgent problem.  We
   can't punt opportunities at hand and continue at our current size. Nor can
   we easily expand.  So we will therefore expand with difficulty.  There is
   no choice.  Our Analyst Development Program is the means where we train
   people and find new analysts as well as find some staff for publishing
   (watch officers, monitors, operations center and writers all under Jenna
   Colley). We will have the largest group of ADPs ever this fall, starting
   next week.  About 13 people at last count will be joining us.  This is a
   huge percentage of the number of analysts on staff. Ideally all will work
   out well and our crisis will be over.  That's unlikely but our crisis will
   be mitigated by January 1. Doing this will put a huge burden on
   Intelligence, who must do their work and also train these people, but
   there is no choice.  This is the year when we break out.  I promise to
   work side by side with the team in training and growing he organization. 
   I also promise that if we succeed, we will become one of the most
   significant and prestigious foreign policy publications in the world-and
   those that made it happen will be known.  I know there are questions about
   by-lines. You know my hesitation, but we will figure out together someway
   to make sure that the glory is shared.

    

   Intelligence is divided into three parts.  There is Strategic Intelligence
   (under Rodger assisted by Reva) that is organized geographically.  There
   is Tactical Intelligence (under Stick, assisted by Nate Hughes) that is
   organized thematically-organized crime, cyber-warfare, military,
   terrorism, security, financial flows, supply chain and so on.  There is
   then intelligence gathering, under Meredith, assisted by Jen Richmond that
   is building sources from around the world.  All of them must grow
   dramatically.  The first two will grow mostly out of the ADP pool. The
   latter will be done by extensive work in the field.  But it is the Writers
   Group that is making the most impressive evolution.  Under Jenna (and Tim
   French and Maverick) it has moved into the heart of intelligence, writing
   as well as editing.  Everyone should watch this team. They are pioneering
   things the world hasn't seen yet. Along with Watch Officers, monitors and
   the operations center, this unit is translating intelligence into product
   with increasing effectiveness.  It is now organizationally mature and
   ready to both grow and sustain the growth of Intelligence.

    

   This growth will put a tremendous strain on other departments. Leticia has
   done a tremendous job in Human Resources, but the job has grown much
   greater than she can possibly manage.  Just the process of getting visas
   for new ADPs is overwhelming, and at least half of these come from other
   countries.  We have selected an HR consulting firm to support her in the
   coming months and other solutions will be found to sustain this. HR will
   become more effective in the next months. In addition, we are retaining a
   law firm to create a policy for Stratfor on Foreign Corrupt Practices
   Act.  I don't plan to do the perp walk and I don't want anyone here doing
   it either.  We need some clear guidelines on the law and are getting them,
   particularly as we ramp our intelligence capability. Similarly finance has
   kept us all going and similarly it has to expand, although it is a shade
   less pressured than HR is.

    

   IT faces a huge challenge.  Traditional IT organizations focus on the
   development of new capabilities for a company and sustaining complex
   systems. At Stratfor, the focus must also be on sustaining basic systems
   like phones, email, configuring and fixing laptops and cell phones and so
   on-the basic tools that make our work possible and which are a particular
   challenge in a global company operating 24-7.  That gives our IT
   department a different shape and tempo than exists in other companies.
   With this class of ADPs, 24-7 will become very real.  IT is under pressure
   to maintain its focus on improving the web site and corporate systems but
   has a special and intense mission of supporting a growing, global company
   at the ground level, and the pressure is never going to be greater than
   now with all the new people coming on board in all departments. Creating
   an IT department that fits our peculiar needs will be Frank's challenge.

    

   I want to also point to two departments that are performing extremely
   well.  Customer Service at Stratfor is among the best in the business.  We
   daily get emails praising their work. John Gibbons has done an amazing job
   keeping this going.  More subscribers mean more customer service of
   course.

    

   Also to be mentioned is he on-line marketing team who has just done
   something very impressive. There is usually a slump in subscriptions after
   a Red Alert, and there was one, but in a matter of weeks they pitched in
   and turned it around with some strange and wonderful campaigns.  They have
   broken their forecast in spite of a pretty quiet world.  Its amazing the
   kind of ads that work!

    

   Let's turn to marketing and sales and the future.  Our readership is now
   about 5 percent of the Economist when we exclude corporate (not sure why
   we exclude corporate but that's what we do).  That means that we have
   probably saturated a good part of the early adopters market-the early
   adopters who love us and have built us-and put up with our weaknesses.
   It's kind of like people who supported Apple in its dark days, putting up
   with promising but not yet mature computers.  If you haven't read,
   \"Crossing the Chasm,\" a rare business book that is actually helpful,
   please take a look at it.  It will explain much of what we are trying to
   achieve in marketing.

    

   We have no choice but to grow.  If we stay this size someone larger, with
   deep pockets will notice the market we have created and come in after us. 
   We won't be able to compete.  The only protection is market share, to be
   so dominant a force in the market that no one challenges us and our own
   deep pockets.  For this we must grow revenue and that means readership. 
   The place we must grow is in the mainstream.  I don't mean by mainstream
   CNN. I mean readers who are interested in what we have, but aren't
   fanatics, groupies and wannabes.  These people have higher standards in
   production values, and less forgiveness for mistakes. They don't buy the
   mystique.  They buy the publication. That's where most of our customers
   are and where we have to go.

    

   Obviously this is one of the reasons we need more people.  It is also the
   reason we must deliver in new ways.  Grant Perry and his team are looking
   at ways to create a unique, Stratfor video culture. I see this myself as
   consisting of much longer and serious conversations among analysts
   moderated by an anchor, documentaries, briefings. Perhaps our Sitreps
   should all be delivered via video and audio (there is I think huge demand
   for audio products in cars, or so many people tell me).  All of this will
   evolve in unexpected directions under Grant, Colin, Brian, Andrew and
   others who will join them. This is part of our own evolution into the
   mainstream, on our own terms, with our own voice. What you see above, by
   the way, are simply my own ideas, not fully thought out.  Whatever Grant
   and his team produce will be uniquely Stratfor.

    

   Other than that we shall see.  What markets we will enter, and how we
   enter them is not yet known. We do know that the current Stratfor product,
   however enhanced, will be our only offering.  We will not be developing
   new products for markets. 

    

   We have hired a consultant, Mark Stacey, who will guide this process.  We
   will also be bringing in a consulting firm to do survey research and
   interviews to teach us more about our current readers, readers who won't
   buy us, and readers who would buy us if they had heard of us.  Our choice
   was between hiring staff to give us a plan or hiring consultants to give
   us a plan and then hiring permanent staff to execute it.  The latter is
   the safest-we avoid a staff without the skill to do what we need whom
   instead craft a plan to do what they already know.  In addition to this
   initiative, we are participating in the University of Texas Business
   School program where a team of graduate students will essentially parallel
   the work of our outside consultants, giving us a double check on the
   data. 

    

   The goal here is to have a marketing and sales plan in place for execution
   on January 1.  From where I sit, the biggest challenge we have is that too
   many people have never heard of us.  At a meeting I can encounter someone
   who has subscribed for years and next to him is a person in the same
   industry that has never heard of us.  It is difficult selling to people
   who have never heard of us.  So our challenge-before trying to sell to
   them-is to increase awareness of who we are.  This is called branding and
   it's different from selling.  It is the precursor.  We will start with
   branding in January. That means there will be marketing people around
   asking many questions in the coming months, frequently the same ones.
   Please work with all of them.  In the end, we will have a plan with a high
   likelihood of success.

    

   Parallel to all of this, the executives (without Don, Steve Feldhaus or
   myself-the board members) are going through a planning process of their
   own, coordinated by Frank Ginac.  Not being on it (and not wanting to be
   informed of what is going on as there should be yet another set of eyes on
   things other than mine) I can't tell you what they are doing.  However,
   the deal we have on this is that as CEO, I will proceed with implementing
   my own plans that I've outlined here, and will consider their proposals
   when I see them. If the decision point is past when they make their
   recommendation on a subject, the recommendation will not be considered. 
   If they come in with recommendations before decision points, their
   recommendations will be taken very seriously.  This allows the company to
   move forward and an alternative planning model to be brought on line when
   it is ready.

    

   The company has become too large and complex for any one person to know
   what is going on.  I am moving (with difficulty) from the role of an early
   entrepreneur, knowing everything going on and getting involved in it, to
   the CEO of a company at the inflexion point.   The inflexion point is the
   point all companies dream of and few achieve-when they start really taking
   off.  This is a great point and a dangerous one.  Unless the company
   changes the way it does things, inflexion aborts.  I am trying to change
   what I do.

    

   There are some things that have to remain my responsibility.  Building
   Intelligence and publishing and particularly training new staff are things
   that I should oversee.  Building the intelligence capabilities of the
   company along with Meredith is also my responsibility.  Creating new
   models to support Stratcap and helping to train Stratcap in the
   capabilities of Stratfor is mine. Overseeing our training of the Marine
   Corps is something I want to do.  Kendra will be my deputy for this, but
   this leaves a large load on me.

    

   Along with this, for better or worse, I am the public face of Stratfor. 
   My speeches and travels build the brand, create intelligence
   opportunities, and give me a clearer vision of how the world works.  I
   will be doing a lot of traveling to do these things, and I will combine
   them with the Geopolitical Journeys concept that seems to have hit a
   nerve.  During my travels I will be doing articles, videos and writing a
   book based on those journeys, on the world's borderlands.  Between that
   and making contacts for Stratfor and StratCap, I will be busy.

    

   Along with that load is going to be setting the broad direction of the
   company.  Through long and sometimes painful experience I have learned
   that ultimate responsibility can be delegated but not abandoned.  It's an
   old military principle that applies here. I have a vision for Stratfor and
   while I will delegate, I will not turn over responsibility because I
   can't.

    

   That means that we will need an evolving management structure.  I've asked
   Don who is formally President of Stratfor to join Darryl in both the day
   to day management of the company and in what we still call \"the business
   side.\"  One day we will simply be one company, but right now we are still
   two sides of one company.  Don and Darryl will now manage that side,
   implementing our plans there.  I will not disappear, but become
   intermittent on daily management but deeply focused on intelligence.

    

   One of the other things I must do is prepare a succession plan.  In some
   parts that are well developed, I already have that plan.  In other parts,
   we have to build an organization to have a succession plan.  But it is my
   intention that Stratfor survive me (no, I'm not feeling poorly and can
   still kick your ass).  I want to build this into the world's finest
   intelligence service, private and free to speak its mind.  I see this as
   the most lasting contribution I can make, and I am serious about making
   sure Stratfor goes on.

    

   We are all at the inflexion point where the level of effort temporarily
   soars until new resources are brought on line.  They couldn't have been
   staged in earlier because there weren't resources available.  But now they
   can't wait, because the moment will pass and perhaps never return.  For
   everything there is a \"now.\"  This is now.

    

   I ask only one specific thing of all of you. If you don't understanding
   anything here; if you want to learn more; if something worries you and
   your boss can't clear it up, come directly to me. I will be available
   until the last week of September when I go with others to Turkey.  Please,
   please, please, do not engage in a round of paranoia or speculation based
   on lack of data.  Just set a time to see me and let's discuss it. 
   StratFantasy (a new term) is I really believe the greatest danger to
   success that we have face.

    

   This is a long review, but many have said they'd like to know where we are
   and what we are doing.  This is about as comprehensive as I can get. There
   will be more such reports.  There are no short versions about where we are
   and what we are doing.

    

    

   OH YES-THIS IS FOR INTERNAL STRATFOR USE ONLY. DO NOT SHARE THIS DOCUMENT
   OR DISCUSS IT OUTSIDE OF STRATFOR.

    

   --

   George Friedman

   Founder and CEO

   STRATFOR

   221 West 6th Street

   Suite 400

   Austin, Texas 78701

    

   Phone: 512-744-4319

   Fax: 512-744-4334

    
","2011-09-05 21:55:16",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/122002_labor-day-review-of-where-we-are-.html","gfriedman@stratfor.com","mailto:stratfordc@stratfor.com","allstratfor@stratfor.com",""
122005,"Re: FOR EDIT - Cat4 - Ven - cleaning house in the armed forces
","   none of those dismissed were generals.  going to hold on this until I can
   get more info either way.  there will be other triggers to explain the
   restructuring of the armed forces in any case
   thanks for checking me on this
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: \"George Friedman\" <friedman@att.blackberry.net>
   To: \"Analysts\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 12:04:05 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
   Subject: Re: FOR EDIT - Cat4 - Ven - cleaning house in the armed forces

   It is standard practice in the us and other military to dismiss officers
   who aren't promoted. The dismissal of 173 non promotable officers in a
   military the size of venezuelas doesn't strike me as significant. Every
   year thousands of american officers are dismissed, usually in may and june
   as postings are up.

   You are trying to say that this is politically significant rather than the
   routine functioning of a militay. Certainly cubans are involved but they
   have been involved for years. There is no battle underway for control of
   the military. Chavez and the cubans won that years ago.

   In order for this story to work you either have to show that chavez's hold
   was slipping or that these particular people were selected because of
   politics rather than routine operations of any military

   You need to look at the people let go. They may be key political figures
   or half wits eating up the budget

   This could be significant but the fact that these guys failed promotion
   and were dismissed is not by itself important.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Reva Bhalla <bhalla@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:54:51 -0500 (CDT)
   To: analysts<analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: FOR EDIT - Cat4 - Ven - cleaning house in the armed forces

   In the latest illustration of Venezuelan President Hugo Chaveza**s
   Cuban-inspired plan to subdue dissent within the armed forces, the
   Venezuelan Armed Forces discharged 173 members that failed to achieve
   promotions during the past three years, El Universal reported April 15.
   Notably, no generals were on the list of those whose jobs had been
   terminated. The list included 59 members of the Army, 45 members of the
   Territorial Guard 43 members of the Navy and 26 from the Air Force. Under
   the July 2008 Organic Law of the National Armed Forces, military personnel
   have a maximum period of two years after the end of their mandatory
   minimum service to obtain a promotion, or else they are forced into
   retirement.

    

   The organic law essentially redefined the Venezuelan Armed Forces from a
   politically non-aligned professional institution (as stated in the 1999
   constitution) to a patriotic, popular and anti-imperialist body. Chavez,
   not wanting to be caught off guard again by his generals as he did in an
   April 2002 coup attempt, came up with the Organic Law of the National
   Armed Forces with the help of his Cuban advisors in order to develop a
   Bolivarian military whose primary purpose is to protect and defend the
   regime. The Cuban government, wanting to ensure Venezuelan dependency on
   Cuban security, also had a role in one of the more controversial articles
   in the organic law, which allows for foreign nationals (read: Cubans) who
   have graduated from Venezuelan defense institutions to earn the rank of
   officer in the Venezuelan armed forces.

    

   For Chavez to feel more politically secure, some internal housecleaning in
   the armed forces was to be expected. The clause in the organic law that
   forces officers into retirement if they are not promoted after two years
   is designed to do just that. Chavez and his military elite have been
   running a system in which political allegiance frequently supercedes
   military merit when it comes to awarding promotions. If, however, an
   officer is deemed as ideologically opposed to the regime, he is often
   forced into retirement.

    

   While the regime has made considerably headway in cleaning house in the
   army, navy and air force, the National Guard has long been a point of
   contention for the Venezuelan leader. This is primarily because out of all
   the military services, the National Guard has historically had the
   strongest relationship with the United States. This relationship dates
   back to the 1980s, when Caracas and Washington were cooperating on
   countering narcotrafficking. CIA and DEA trainers were operating in
   Venezuela at the time and worked closely with the National Guard. Chavez
   envisioned breaking up the National Guard completely and replacing it with
   his own version of a Territorial Guard comprised of hundreds of thousands
   of civilian military reservists and active duty military personnel who
   could engage in a**asymmetrical wara** against an external threat like the
   United States. The National Guard fought its abolition by invoking the
   1999 Constitution that lists the National Guard as one of the four
   elements of the Armed Forces. However, the internal security force is
   still subject to periodic purges. Notably, when Chavez decided to
   restructure the Armed Forces into five strategic defense regions, he
   assigned the National Guard commander to the Western region that consists
   of the states of FalcA^3n Lara, Trujillo, MA(c)rida, TA!chira and Zulia.
   This is an area where the political opposition in Venezuela is
   concentrated, which allows Chaveza**s military allies to more easily
   designate officers as political supporters or dissenters when it comes
   time to promote or force members into retirement.

    

   Chavez has attempted to make up for any lingering dissent within the armed
   forces through the creation of the National Bolivarian Militia (NBM) in
   2007 out of some 110,000 reservists, and has since reportedly grown the
   force to roughly 300,000. Efforts are also underway to bolster the NBM
   with peasant recruits and the possible formation of a marine militia
   http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20100301_venezuela_calls_marine_militia.
   The purpose of the militias is to essentially act as a security orce at
   the behest of the president. However, the incorporation of the NBM into
   the Armed Forces structure has caused substantial consternation amongst
   several within the military elite. STRATFOR sources have reported on how
   the defense ministry in particular has resisted the deployment and
   armament of these militias. For now, the militia training exercises are
   used as photo opportunities to demonstrate a military force ideologically
   bound to the regime. If the president chooses to put them to use, however,
   he could face significant opposition from within the military elite. A
   STRATFOR source claims that the defense ministry has kept tabs on the
   militiaa**s activities by maintaining physical control over their weapons
   arsenal, which consists mainly of AK-103 and AK-104 assault rifles
   acquired from Russia.

    

   With economic conditions worsening, an electricity crisis turning critical
   and the political opposition beginning to rise to the occasion, Chavez is
   walking a careful balance between bolstering his internal security force
   and keeping his generals in check. Any significant use of the militias
   would likely be an option of last resort for the regime, which will depend
   primarily on cash handouts to maintain support. It thus becomes all the
   more critical for the government to ensure that revenues keep flowing from
   the countrya**s oil production, but that strategy may also be running into
   trouble, as illustrated by recent strikes by PDVSA contract workers
   http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20100415_venezuela_reprieve_guri_dam in
   the northeastern state of Monagas who are demanding that the state oil
   firm pay wages that were due in January. If PDVSA finances are in serious
   trouble, then the countrya**s main source of revenue a** and thus
   political insurance a** would also be in jeopardy. Meanwhile, Cuba is
   well-positioned to further entrench itself in the Venezuelan security and
   intelligence apparatus as the Chavez governmenta**s vulnerabilities
   continue to rise.

    

    

    
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-03-05 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/122005_re-for-edit-cat4-ven-cleaning-house-in-the-armed-forces-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","","analysts@stratfor.com,friedman@att.blackberry.net",""
122544,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
","   this dude really gives the impression that Moscow calls the shots in Kiev

   so basically, Med gets pissed b/c Timo is blowing Putin and not him, so he
   whines to Putin and says drop the B and get behind Yanu like me. Putin
   says fine, Yanu gets excited and oversteps his boundaries, and now Putin
   is like fix this shit Med and Med is like okay, but we dont know what Med
   is actually gonna do to slap Yanu around

   so what's the couterargument to this? Does Russia really have this much
   influence over the situation?  this is something we need to address in
   ukraine reassessment

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111

   CODE: UA111
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   HANDLER: Lauren

    

   Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
   But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
   this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
   begin with.

    

   You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
   power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
   Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
   solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
   Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
   easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
   her in trouble and arrested.

    

   But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
   respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
   made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
   deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
   Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
   the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
   military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
   it had been pushing for.

    

   So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
   the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
   to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
   demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.

    

   Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
   to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
   against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
   will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-28 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/122544_re-alpha-insight-ukraine-moscow-kiev-spat-ua111-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","","alpha@stratfor.com",""
122698,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
","   this dude really gives the impression that Moscow calls the shots in Kiev

   so basically, Med gets pissed b/c Timo is blowing Putin and not him, so he
   whines to Putin and says drop the B and get behind Yanu like me. Putin
   says fine, Yanu gets excited and oversteps his boundaries, and now Putin
   is like fix this shit Med and Med is like okay, but we dont know what Med
   is actually gonna do to slap Yanu around

   so what's the couterargument to this? Does Russia really have this much
   influence over the situation?  this is something we need to address in
   ukraine reassessment

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111

   CODE: UA111
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   HANDLER: Lauren

    

   Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
   But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
   this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
   begin with.

    

   You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
   power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
   Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
   solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
   Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
   easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
   her in trouble and arrested.

    

   But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
   respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
   made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
   deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
   Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
   the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
   military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
   it had been pushing for.

    

   So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
   the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
   to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
   demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.

    

   Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
   to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
   against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
   will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-14 20:55:23",1,"2012-02-28 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/122698_re-alpha-insight-ukraine-moscow-kiev-spat-ua111-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
123320,"Re: noble energy
","   By all means talk to him. Itd be interesting to get his view. Turks are
   out of control.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Reva Bhalla <bhalla@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 21:35:49 -0500 (CDT)
   To: George Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>
   Subject: noble energy
   As I'm sure you are aware, Noble energy is trying to drill in Greek Cyprus
   waters, and Turkey is raising hell over it. Basically, because they can
   since Greece is a mess right now anyway.  The move to deploy frigates
   seems to be part of this.

   I was just talking to David (the bf), whose best friend's dad is the head
   of Noble Energy. They were all having dinner in houston and the dad was
   talking about how the Turks are creating a nightmare for them with this
   whole warships thing. David was telling him about what I do, and how we do
   a lot of work with Turkey, and the dad wants to talk to me about this.
   Might turn into a business opportunity, you never know. But this family
   has houses all over the world, the dad speaks 10 languages, living in
   Cyprus right now, used to be in Quito and before that, Vietnam, has all
   kinds of crazy connections and crazy dealings with shady people. I might
   be able to learn some interesting things from him. And maybe we could help
   them understand what the Turks are actually going to do...

   Background on the issue that Emre wrote up earlier-

   This is more of a summary of the current situation and questions that
   arise from it. Please feel free to add your comments/questions before I
   tap sources.

   Below is the area where American Noble Energy is supposed to start
   exploratory oil and natural gas drillings in early October according to
   the right granted by Greek Cyprus in 2008. (Attention: Leviathan and Tamar
   are Israeli wells, not Cyprus)

   As far as energy matters are concerned, there is not much to say. Since no
   exploration took place yet, there is no estimation of reserves that would
   tells us how far Cyprus would be willing to push the deal. However, given
   the gigantic reserves found in Israeli offshore fields, ita**s very
   possible that the same would be the case for Cyprus. At least this is the
   hope of Greek Cyprus.

   As you know, Turkish Cyprus is only recognized by Turkey, whereas Greek
   Cyprus is the official government of the entire island and a member of the
   EU, which is not recognized by Turkey. So, this is an issue of national
   sovereignty more than energy production, though Turkey does not want to
   lose energy reserves as well.

   What has happened so far;

   Greek Cyprus side:

   - Greek Cyprus FM sought political support in Israel. They keep saying
   that Israel supports them, but I really doubt that Israel would get
   involved in this controversy for Greek Cyprus while it is having its a)
   own offshore reserves dispute with Lebanon b) troubles with Turkey.

   - Greece is mostly quiet, for a good reason. Athens gives support to
   Cyprus, though only rhetorical. I also have not seen any important
   statement from the EU.

   - Greek Cyprus says it will block energy chapter of Turkey/EU membership
   negotiations. Greek Cyprus has already blocked eight chapters anyway and
   membership talks are in coma. So, this threat does not mean anything for
   Turkey. Even if it did, EU members have their own individual energy
   dealings with Turkey.

   - No statement from Noble Energy yet, neither from the US government.

   Overall, Greek Cyprus has nothing that can stop Turkey.

   Turkey side:

   - Turkey says TPAO will start drillings there as well. I am not sure if
   TPAO is able to do that on its own. Fourth well in the Black Sea oil
   exploration project is operated by TPAO, but the platform is owned by
   Petrobras. (to be replaced by ExxonMobil). So, this does not look very
   credible to me.

   - Most significant tool is, though, Turkeya**s decision to put military
   options on the table to be used in eastern Med, seemingly against Israel.
   Turkey never said it would use it against Cyprus, but if Turkey considers
   eastern Med as its turf that it is ready to defend militarily, there is
   not so much that Greek Cyprus can do to prevent it. This also increases
   risks for Noble Energy when it comes to investment decisions.

   - Turkish MFA also said today that Turkey and Turkish Cyprus agreed to
   conclude a continental shelf delimitation agreement should the Greek
   Cypriot administration proceed with offshore drilling activities in the
   south of the island. Meaningless political/legal move.

   Questions moving forward:

   Noble Energy: What are the plans of Noble Energy? Are they planning to
   move on with the deal? If so, how and when? Is there Noble Energy's
   platform off Cyprus? 

   Turkey: Is Turkey floating the idea of using the military threat against
   Cyprus? Can TPAO drill in southern Cyprus?

   Cyprus: What are the options of Greek Cyprus? What can they do to move on?

    

   --
   --
   Emre Dogru
   STRATFOR  
   Cell: +90.532.465.7514
   Fixed: +1.512.279.9468  
   emre.dogru@stratfor.com  
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-16 04:42:33",1,"2012-03-01 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/123320_re-noble-energy-.html","friedman@att.blackberry.net","","bhalla@stratfor.com",""
136715,"B3* - Market Update - 20111006 - 12:00:01
","MARKET UPDATE



STOCK MARKETS

S&P 500 INDEX,RTH
As of: 12:57, 10/06/2011
Value: 1154.85
Change: +10.82
Change%: +0.95%

FTSE 100
As of: 11:35, 10/06/2011
Value: 5291.26
Change: +189.09
Change%: +3.71%

DAX
As of: 11:45, 10/06/2011
Value: 5645.25
Change: +172.22
Change%: +3.15%

NIKKEI 225
As of: 02:28, 10/06/2011
Value: 8522.02
Change: +139.039
Change%: +1.66%

HANG SENG INDEX
As of: 04:01, 10/06/2011
Value: 17172.279
Change: +922.01
Change%: +5.67%

RTSI INDEX
As of: 10:45, 10/06/2011
Value: 1271.71
Change: +54.50
Change%: +4.48%

TREASURY BONDS

CBOE Interest Rat
As of: 12:42, 10/06/2011
Yield: 1.967%
Change: +0.062
Change%: +3.25%

Treasury Yield 30
As of: 12:42, 10/06/2011
Yield: 2.936%
Change: +0.053
Change%: +1.84%

COMMODITIES

Crude Oil Nov 11
As of: 12:47, 10/06/2011
Value: 80.94
Change: +1.26
Change%: +1.58%

Brent Crude Oil L
As of: 11:56, 10/06/2011
Value: 103.20
Change: +0.59
Change%: +0.57%

Copper Oct 11
As of: 12:07, 10/06/2011
Value: 3.2365
Change: +0.1375
Change%: +4.44%

Gold Oct 11
As of: 10:50, 10/06/2011
Value: 1641.60
Change: +1.30
Change%: +0.08%

Corn Dec 11
As of: 12:47, 10/06/2011
Value: 607.50
Change: +2.00
Change%: +0.33%

Wheat Dec 11
As of: 12:48, 10/06/2011
Value: 618.75
Change: -6.50
Change%: -1.04%

Soybeans Nov 11
As of: 12:48, 10/06/2011
Value: 1168.25
Change: +4.50
Change%: +0.39%

Rough Rice Nov 11
As of: 12:41, 10/06/2011
Value: 16.005
Change: -0.01
Change%: -0.06%

CURRENCIES

EUR to USD
As of: 12:57, 10/06/2011
Value: 1.3397
Change: 
Change%: %

USD to JPY
As of: 12:55, 10/06/2011
Value: 76.675
Change: 
Change%: %

--
STRATFOR
Market Update v1.0
Kevin Stech <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
","2011-10-06 19:00:02",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/136715_b3-market-update-20111006-12-00-01-.html","markets@research.stratfor.com","mailto:alerts@stratfor.com","alerts@stratfor.com",""
156443,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Brown

   On 10/24/11 11:50 AM, Morgan Kauffman wrote:

     If you're going to cover the vigilante/robin-hood aspect, I found this
     in today's sweeps: 
     http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/10/anonymous-takes-down-darknet-child-porn-site-on-tor-network.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
     and 
     http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2395175,00.asp#fbid=KvMufY_Mq3a

     They've got a sub-group that tries to hunt down child-abuse sites and
     users - last week they published a list of 1500 names of visitors to one
     site, in addition to performing a couple of DDoS attacks to the server.

     On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

       Link: themeData

       I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to have a
       broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no nothing, or
       almost nothing about what this group is and the threat it poses.
       Reviewing their list of attacks
       (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most of the
       cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood of the internet
       . The interesting thing when it comes to their interactions with the
       cartels is the dubious role they play: at the same time they can be
       fighting crime by revealing cartel members/supporters, but they can
       also put lives in risk.

       However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by Anonymous.
       The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can conduct a cyber
       attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
       (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

       If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government websites,
       or if I am just a internet user, I would like to know more about these
       guys. Who they are? What are they interested in? How they operate? Who
       they have targeted so far? How can I defend myself from them? In what
       countries are they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use
       them to achieve any particular goal?

       On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

         nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else can
         build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they pose to
         innocent people caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing
         on journalists or taxi drivers they show little understanding of the
         situation.  This has long term implications in not just Mexico. 
         They don't consider the consequences of their actions and they act
         without understanding the environment.  It was the same when they
         released information on the Sony Playstation network to protest
         Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

         On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

           Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
           possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
           Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by Anonymous,
           threatens revealing personal information on cartels as well as
           states a member had been kidnapped. I could not find any sources
           outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being kidnapped.
           According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous
           Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual posting flyers in
           Veracruz as part of the Operation Paperstorm protest, although
           that is speculation.

           Link: themeData
           Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
           denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed
           out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
           Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked
           individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the
           most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
           the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing
           identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists
           who collude with criminal cartels. No mention of banks that accept
           their laundered money? That is when they would be a threat to
           their bottom line. They can always buy cabbies, cops, politicos
           and journos but tracing banks.  The hacker group demanded Los
           Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
           consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
           was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
           their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
           potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and
           hackers, presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels
           lashing out at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting
           on cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

           What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
           threat to Mexican cartels.
                o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
           media
                o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash
           out at cartels

           While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
           threat
                o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
           identifiable information on cartel members
                o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire
           on cartels
                o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
           communications, identifiable information on cartels members have
           to be considered in the realm of possibilities for
                       Anonymous
                       o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
           illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

           Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
           ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result,
           their understanding of cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous
           may act with confidence when sitting in front of a computer, but
           this may blind them to any possible retribution. They may not even
           know the impact of any online assault of cartels.
                o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists
           will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these
           individuals are forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi
           drivers are often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
           halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals will not
           have a significant impact on cartel                   operations.
           Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
           Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any
           consequences from this.
                o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels
           are willing to go protect their operations.
                   o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                   o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
           community before, coercing computer science majors into working
           for them.
                   o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
           discovering hackers within Mexico.

            

           On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

             Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but
             there are several issues to address and fix here.

             These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
             discussion:

                  o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine
             but we can't gloss over that fact
                  o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
             between stealing bank records from government computers and
             overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                  o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
             information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
             kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
             talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
             politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
             going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
             killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
             operational details, because they acted as informants, because
             they exposed links with officials or because they somehow
             sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
             information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                  o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
             realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a
             measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity
             except for the technical ability by a very small number of its
             members to infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal
             information. Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on
             a network that is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)?
             Where else could information be found? Government databases?
             Once we know what kind of information is accessible, we can also
             know more about the consequences of dissemination.
                  o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to
             trace back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of
             killings done by people who may not understand the difference
             between an anon hacker and a blogger.

             On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

               wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

               -------- Original Message --------

                Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                   Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                   From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
               Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                     To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

               you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need
               a lot more work

               You need to lay out:

               a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger
               section is unclear
               b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
               therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
               c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
               anything
               d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill
               anyone who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

               I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
               insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant
               levels of sophistication in their online presence, to include
               the use of cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
               is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
               business online, in a protected fashion.

               Karen Hooper
               Latin America Analyst
               o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
               c: 512.750.7234
               STRATFOR
               www.stratfor.com
               On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

               On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

               Link: themeData

               Trigger

               Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
               Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?,
               lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
               denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video
               released depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a
               screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent video release,
               Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels.
               Threats such as releasing identities of Mexican? American?
               taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists who collude
               with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas
               release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences.
               The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels
               and hackers, presents an unprecedented war front for the
               cartels. The vastly different operations of Anonymous and Los
               Zetas leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have
               little experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no
               experience with the cartels. I do not believe for a second
               that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                

               In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
               mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
               their demands of releasing a kidnapped member this should be
               mentioned right up front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is
               threatening to hit back. Provide enough details so we
               understand who this guy is and why/how he was abducted. are
               not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing revealing
               information on cartel members and operations are true, cartels
               will likely respond with violence against individuals revealed
               as opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous members?.
               It also is likely that public disclosure of GOM officials who
               collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving
               the Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this
               means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
               effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against
               Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will continue
               their threats against any individual using online media WC....
               you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers
               here. against the cartels.

                

               The Battle Space

               Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
               realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere
               of the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience
               geographical boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
               exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They
               are physical people tho live in the real world. They have
               names and addresses - although most of them are likely outside
               of MX.)  Anonymous' power base consists of their technical
               capabilities in hacking. Any information connected to the
               Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying
               the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's
               population could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of
               what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
               Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in
               revenue, but it does not really matter if you don't run
               operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money via
               e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on the web than
               the jihadists.)

               Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power
               base consists of the perceived anonymity that its members
               believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating
               through the internet. This gives an opening for people
               disgruntled by anything and everything to practice general
               dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity + audience =
               troll. Only a fraction of the large web of people who identify
               themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
               capability. 

               The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has
               been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

               The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US
               and Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking
               to maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
               commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
               and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from
               insight. There is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't
               have a similar capacity.  Their power base is built by large
               amounts of revenue and escalating brutal violence. Cartels
               like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing different types of
               threats. Cartels are always suffering at the hands of cartel
               on cartel violence. While battling each other, cartels still
               face arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to
               avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
               have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
               bloggers in order to cover details of their operations. ok...
               but that's kind of a red herrng for this discussion. You need
               to focus on the possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't
               just assume they have no cyber presence.

                

               Anonymous' Weapons

               Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
               criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability
               to combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly
               disseminating sensitive information on cartels and propagating
               anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced websites
               in Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous
               admitted in their video to cartels, they cannot fight with
               guns.  The significance of a targeted information operations
               campaign by technically elite individuals can not be
               overlooked should not be underestimated. Cartels view main
               stream media outlets and social media blogs as such a threat
               to their operations, that they have continued to target
               journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los
               Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on
               the body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
               denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive
               here, and it's not really addressing the subheading

               As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet
               risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to
               suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing information they
               threaten to release. By releasing identities of individuals
               cooperating with Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life
               of those individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate
               sensitive information is limited by what is available via the
               Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
               should always be considered a possibility of an attack.
               However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the US
               governments computer networks, information available to
               Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy to acquire. 
               what are you trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

                

               Cartel's Defense

                           A counter response to the video? by the cartels
               has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a
               kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun
               addressing the threat posed by hackers so... how has there not
               been a counter response? also this undermines your statements
               above about how Anonymous is soley internet based, and
               underlines the vulnerabilities of associated members. How did
               they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that could very
               well give you some indication to the technical ability of the
               cartels . As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
               wide web , the cartels will face a number of challenges which
               rarely are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has
               whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You
               can assume (and we have good intel indicating that) they are
               working on disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening
               cartels, can operate in any region of the world. Personal
               information including locations is only available if a hacker
               chooses to divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy
               enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only work for
               Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
               online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or
               start employing hackers of their own under their payroll?
               Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                           Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
               Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the
               help of computer science majors through personal threats has
               been reported in the past where? What cartels? reported
               where?.  Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence
               and drug trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of
               technical experts to help combat any threat by computer
               hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been
               demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable of
               identifying any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
               enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
               experience and resources than cartels, struggle to find
               hackers through investigations. A) How do you know they are
               not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm
               goign to assume that not all hackers are equally difficult to
               track down

                           In order to compete with an online foe, cartels
               will likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar
               with, brute force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT
               operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they
               wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
               communities will likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel
               members.  Narco banners and public display of violence will
               likely continue to be used to scare online media into
               submission i'm not really seeing the online
               media-international hacking group connection here.  The cruel
               manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer
               hackers have unlikely encountered before in their life.
               Whether the fear of cartel violence softens the confidence of
               Anonymous will remain to be seen until cartels are able to
               seek out and capture members of the hacker group.. Or the
               Narcos could call the collective bluff and simply go on and
               shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

 --
 Sincerely,

 Marko Primorac
 Tactical Analyst
 marko.primorac@stratfor.com
 Tel: +1 512.744.4300
 Cell: +1 717.557.8480
","2011-10-24 18:59:47",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/156443_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","marko.primorac@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
156645,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   I agree. I haven't seen any defining attributes of Anonymous as a group.
   They may not even know the identities of each other. There are several
   facebook / twitter Anonymous pages, which seem to be run by different
   individuals.

   What about defining Anonymous in terms of the individual? Instead of
   saying Anonymous attacking cartels, Individuals acting under the Anonymous
   name....

   -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents have access to,
   and doubt they have such information that provides any sort of existential
   threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 
   This is a problem with the threat assessment. Technically, anything cartel
   related (emails, online transactions, Mexican LEA information, etc.) would
   be available to a hacker, but we don't know if they have had access to
   this information, or if the hackers interested in harming cartels are
   capable. It's not even confirmed hackers have revealing information on
   cartel supporters which the video claims.

   On 10/24/11 1:11 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     Somehow we have to stop referring to 'anonymous' as a monolith.  They
     are a bunch of different people that essentially get together in an
     online-form of a mob to carry out some action. I'm not sure how to do
     this in writing consistently.  But let's start with shit like 'people
     joining Anonymous chatrooms and claiming to be part of the movement' or
     something like that. 

     Comments in green below.  This is coming together nicely. 

     On 10/24/11 11:19 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of
       these in the US?
        What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
       I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
       whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
       because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
       revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of
       understanding of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is
       expendable to cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of
       coercion.

       Anonymous does not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
       cartels.  mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of
       el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication
       as a tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable
       intelligence, the government will use it against the cartels. That's a
       physical threat, if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify
       that Anonymous can not directly effect physical security. Any impact
       to the cartel in revealing information will be from actions of rival
       cartels or the GoM. They may release information on a given politician
       being linked to the cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the
       politician will feel an impact (Just because Anonymous says there is a
       link, doesn't make it true). It would be up to others to take action. 
       I think the way you have it worded in the above sentence is good. 
       Follow with a sentence explaining the rest of it, because readers will
       have the same question Karen did.  Something like 'Rather, the threat
       to cartels would come in what information anonymous could expose that
       is useful to their enemies'

       Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online
       activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to
       conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't know how
       much, but we do know they will have some points of operational
       vulnerability I have heard of cartels doing business online, but don't
       have specific examples which could be used in assessing their
       vulnerability online.

       by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired,
       arrested or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I
       should say, there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out
       politicians as colluding.
       On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

         Karen Hooper
         Latin America Analyst
         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
         c: 512.750.7234
         STRATFOR
         www.stratfor.com
         On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
         Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
         possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
         Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by people using
         the banner of Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on
         cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
         find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual
         being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico
         and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual
         posting flyers ['critical of cartels'?] in Veracruz as part of the
         Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation. [this is
         good and will be enough information to go with, though you'll need a
         quick explanation of what 'operation paperstorm' is.  Adding
         something in the explaining the flyers will work]

         Link: themeData
         Anonymous, a decentralized hacker collective  famous for distributed
         denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government and corporate
         websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
         statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video
         depicting a masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on
         October 10? With the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold
         threats towards the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as
         releasing identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
         journalists who collude with criminal cartels do they specify
         whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of these in the US?
          What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
         group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
         face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
         was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
         their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
         potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
         presents a unique threat towards TCOs [If TCO= transnational
         criminal organization, it's not really unique.  Many such
         organizations do their crimes online, and have been hacked in
         response--like the nigerian princess scams. I think you should just
         say it's a unique threat to DTOs] . We know of cartels lashing out
         at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels
         dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

         What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
              o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
         threat to Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a
         gun to the head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for
         the using publication as a tool to force government action. If you
         reveal actionable intelligence, the government will use it against
         the cartels. That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
              o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
         media
              o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out
         at cartels

         While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
         threat, if it had access to certain types of information:

                 -The threat is in the information they can expose that may
     be of use to any cartel enemies.  That could be to the government or
     other cartels or even local citizens (the last one may be a stretch, but
     i could imagine someone discrediting cartel members in the eyes of the
     public).

              o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims tocut possess
         identifiable information on cartel members 
              o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
         cartels [cut this part here, and make the point at the end of this
         section/paragraph]
              o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
         identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in
         the realm of possibilities for
                     Anonymous
                     o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
         illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels
         are known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We
         don't know how much, but we do know they will have some points of
         operational vulnerability

        -They claim to have information on those that collude with cartels 
     (use the stuff you have above].  Releasing such information could hurt
     cartels' support networks, but most of these people are also easily
     replaceable. 
                 -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents
     have access to, and doubt they have such information that provides any
     sort of existential threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 

         Most Anonymous hackers are likely far removed from the ultra-violent
         world of drug trafficking in Mexico, but it's quite possible that
         some of its members in this campaign are in Mexico and opposed to
         the violence [or something like that.  my limited understanding is
         there are still activist crusader-types in Mexico, yeah?  it seems
         very possible those with a bit of time or computer skills could have
         joined up with anonymous] . As a result, their understanding of
         cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous members in other
         countries may act with confidence when sitting in front of a
         computer, but this may blind them to any possible retribution. They
         may not even know the impact of any online assault of cartels.  [the
         part below and above is written rather normatively.  We need to take
         that out.  just state the facts]
              o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists
         will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these
         individuals are forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi
         drivers are often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
         halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals will not have
         a significant impact on cartel                   operations.
         Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
         Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any
         consequences from this. by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you
         mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and that happens all
         the time.
              o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels
         are willing to go protect their operations.
                 o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                 o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
         community before, coercing computer science majors into working for
         them.
                 o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
         discovering hackers within Mexico.
         need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply
         publishing tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the
         same camp as the bloggers  [yes, i think it needs to be clear that
         their damage will be similar to what bloggers or wikileaks can
         do--limited.  But maybe more a danger to themselves, since they are
         no longer challenging governments, but criminal organizations]

          

         On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

           Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but
           there are several issues to address and fix here.

           These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
           discussion:

                o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but
           we can't gloss over that fact
                o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
           between stealing bank records from government computers and
           overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
           information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
           kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
           talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
           politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
           going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
           killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
           operational details, because they acted as informants, because
           they exposed links with officials or because they somehow sullied
           the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of information is
           damaging to the cartels themselves?
                o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
           realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure
           of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for
           the technical ability by a very small number of its members to
           infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal information.
           Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on a network that
           is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
           information be found? Government databases? Once we know what kind
           of information is accessible, we can also know more about the
           consequences of dissemination.
                o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
           back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings
           done by people who may not understand the difference between an
           anon hacker and a blogger.

           On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

             wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

             -------- Original Message --------

              Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                 From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
             Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                   To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

             you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a
             lot more work

             You need to lay out:

             a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section
             is unclear
             b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
             therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
             c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
             d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone
             who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

             I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
             insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant
             levels of sophistication in their online presence, to include
             the use of cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
             is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
             business online, in a protected fashion.

             Karen Hooper
             Latin America Analyst
             o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
             c: 512.750.7234
             STRATFOR
             www.stratfor.com
             On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

             On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             Link: themeData

             Trigger

             Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
             Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed
             out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
             denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released
             depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a screen?
             exactly when?.  With the most recent video release, Anonymous
             makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels. Threats such as
             releasing identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
             politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels.
             The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped
             member otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
             between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
             unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly different
             operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
             Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
             believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
             not believe for a second that the cartels have no experience
             with hackers.

              

             In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned
             as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their
             demands of releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned
             right up front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening
             to hit back. Provide enough details so we understand who this
             guy is and why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous'
             claims of possessing revealing information on cartel members and
             operations are true, cartels will likely respond with violence
             against individuals revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you
             mean Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public
             disclosure of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force the
             GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i
             don't understand what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten
             Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
             against Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will
             continue their threats against any individual using online media
             WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about
             bloggers here. against the cartels.

              

             The Battle Space

             Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
             realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere
             of the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience
             geographical boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
             exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They
             are physical people tho live in the real world. They have names
             and addresses - although most of them are likely outside of MX.)
              Anonymous' power base consists of their technical capabilities
             in hacking. Any information connected to the Internet is
             vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's of
             individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population
             could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
             has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big
             company with a website that brings in revenue, but it does not
             really matter if you don't run operations on the web. Los Z
             don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are also far less
             dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

             Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power
             base consists of the perceived anonymity that its members
             believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating
             through the internet. This gives an opening for people
             disgruntled by anything and everything to practice general
             dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity + audience = troll.
             Only a fraction of the large web of people who identify
             themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
             capability. 

             The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been
             from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

             The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
             Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
             maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
             commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
             and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight.
             There is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar
             capacity.  Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue
             and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
             experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels are
             always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence.
             While battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law
             Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in
             the flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted media
             outlets. Murdering journalists and online bloggers in order to
             cover details of their operations. ok... but that's kind of a
             red herrng for this discussion. You need to focus on the
             possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
             have no cyber presence.

              

             Anonymous' Weapons

             Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
             criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
             combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly
             disseminating sensitive information on cartels and propagating
             anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced websites in
             Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous
             admitted in their video to cartels, they cannot fight with
             guns.  The significance of a targeted information operations
             campaign by technically elite individuals can not be overlooked
             should not be underestimated. Cartels view main stream media
             outlets and social media blogs as such a threat to their
             operations, that they have continued to target journalists and
             bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was placed
             with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the body of a
             blogger. The message threatened any users who denounce cartels
             on blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not
             really addressing the subheading

             As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet
             risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest
             Anonymous is capable of possessing information they threaten to
             release. By releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
             Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
             individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
             information is limited by what is available via the Internet.
             Government computers connected to the Internet should always be
             considered a possibility of an attack. However, as with the
             compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer
             networks, information available to Mexico's intelligence
             collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to
             say here? This isn't clear at all

              

             Cartel's Defense

                         A counter response to the video? by the cartels has
             yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped
             member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the
             threat posed by hackers so... how has there not been a counter
             response? also this undermines your statements above about how
             Anonymous is soley internet based, and underlines the
             vulnerabilities of associated members. How did they find teh
             Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well give you
             some indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
             Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the
             cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed
             for them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies
             dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and
             we have good intel indicating that) they are working on
             disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can
             operate in any region of the world. Personal information
             including locations is only available if a hacker chooses to
             divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
             figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous. Cartels
             are only capable of dealing with their online enemy, if they can
             physically reach out to them. Or start employing hackers of
             their own under their payroll? Stranger things have happened,
             Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                         Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
             Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the
             help of computer science majors through personal threats has
             been reported in the past where? What cartels? reported where?. 
             Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence and drug
             trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of technical
             experts to help combat any threat by computer hackers.  While
             identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it
             is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
             operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies such
             as the FBi, with far more technical experience and resources
             than cartels, struggle to find hackers through investigations.
             A) How do you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they
             kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are
             equally difficult to track down

                         In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
             likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with,
             brute force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT
             operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they
             wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
             communities will likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel
             members.  Narco banners and public display of violence will
             likely continue to be used to scare online media into submission
             i'm not really seeing the online media-international hacking
             group connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
             inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
             encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of cartel
             violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will remain to be
             seen until cartels are able to seek out and capture members of
             the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the collective bluff
             and simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can
             inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:50:49",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/156645_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
156693,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   yes, marc called them a mob - and that seems accurate

   On 10/24/11 1:33 PM, scott stewart wrote:

     Good point. 
     In terrorist terms they are more like grassroots people than AQ core. 
     From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
     Reply-To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:11:05 -0500
     To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
     Somehow we have to stop referring to 'anonymous' as a monolith.  They
     are a bunch of different people that essentially get together in an
     online-form of a mob to carry out some action. I'm not sure how to do
     this in writing consistently.  But let's start with shit like 'people
     joining Anonymous chatrooms and claiming to be part of the movement' or
     something like that. 

     Comments in green below.  This is coming together nicely. 

     On 10/24/11 11:19 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of
       these in the US?
        What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
       I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
       whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
       because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
       revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of
       understanding of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is
       expendable to cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of
       coercion.

       Anonymous does not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
       cartels.  mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of
       el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication
       as a tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable
       intelligence, the government will use it against the cartels. That's a
       physical threat, if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify
       that Anonymous can not directly effect physical security. Any impact
       to the cartel in revealing information will be from actions of rival
       cartels or the GoM. They may release information on a given politician
       being linked to the cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the
       politician will feel an impact (Just because Anonymous says there is a
       link, doesn't make it true). It would be up to others to take action. 
       I think the way you have it worded in the above sentence is good. 
       Follow with a sentence explaining the rest of it, because readers will
       have the same question Karen did.  Something like 'Rather, the threat
       to cartels would come in what information anonymous could expose that
       is useful to their enemies'

       Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online
       activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to
       conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't know how
       much, but we do know they will have some points of operational
       vulnerability I have heard of cartels doing business online, but don't
       have specific examples which could be used in assessing their
       vulnerability online.

       by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired,
       arrested or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I
       should say, there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out
       politicians as colluding.
       On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

         Karen Hooper
         Latin America Analyst
         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
         c: 512.750.7234
         STRATFOR
         www.stratfor.com
         On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
         Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
         possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
         Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by people using
         the banner of Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on
         cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
         find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual
         being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico
         and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual
         posting flyers ['critical of cartels'?] in Veracruz as part of the
         Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation. [this is
         good and will be enough information to go with, though you'll need a
         quick explanation of what 'operation paperstorm' is.  Adding
         something in the explaining the flyers will work]

         Link: themeData
         Anonymous, a decentralized hacker collective  famous for distributed
         denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government and corporate
         websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
         statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video
         depicting a masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on
         October 10? With the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold
         threats towards the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as
         releasing identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
         journalists who collude with criminal cartels do they specify
         whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of these in the US?
          What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
         group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
         face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
         was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
         their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
         potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
         presents a unique threat towards TCOs [If TCO= transnational
         criminal organization, it's not really unique.  Many such
         organizations do their crimes online, and have been hacked in
         response--like the nigerian princess scams. I think you should just
         say it's a unique threat to DTOs] . We know of cartels lashing out
         at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels
         dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

         What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
              o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
         threat to Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a
         gun to the head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for
         the using publication as a tool to force government action. If you
         reveal actionable intelligence, the government will use it against
         the cartels. That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
              o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
         media
              o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out
         at cartels

         While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
         threat, if it had access to certain types of information:

                 -The threat is in the information they can expose that may
     be of use to any cartel enemies.  That could be to the government or
     other cartels or even local citizens (the last one may be a stretch, but
     i could imagine someone discrediting cartel members in the eyes of the
     public).

              o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims tocut possess
         identifiable information on cartel members 
              o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
         cartels [cut this part here, and make the point at the end of this
         section/paragraph]
              o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
         identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in
         the realm of possibilities for
                     Anonymous
                     o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
         illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels
         are known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We
         don't know how much, but we do know they will have some points of
         operational vulnerability

        -They claim to have information on those that collude with cartels 
     (use the stuff you have above].  Releasing such information could hurt
     cartels' support networks, but most of these people are also easily
     replaceable. 
                 -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents
     have access to, and doubt they have such information that provides any
     sort of existential threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 

         Most Anonymous hackers are likely far removed from the ultra-violent
         world of drug trafficking in Mexico, but it's quite possible that
         some of its members in this campaign are in Mexico and opposed to
         the violence [or something like that.  my limited understanding is
         there are still activist crusader-types in Mexico, yeah?  it seems
         very possible those with a bit of time or computer skills could have
         joined up with anonymous] . As a result, their understanding of
         cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous members in other
         countries may act with confidence when sitting in front of a
         computer, but this may blind them to any possible retribution. They
         may not even know the impact of any online assault of cartels.  [the
         part below and above is written rather normatively.  We need to take
         that out.  just state the facts]
              o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists
         will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these
         individuals are forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi
         drivers are often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
         halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals will not have
         a significant impact on cartel                   operations.
         Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
         Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any
         consequences from this. by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you
         mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and that happens all
         the time.
              o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels
         are willing to go protect their operations.
                 o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                 o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
         community before, coercing computer science majors into working for
         them.
                 o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
         discovering hackers within Mexico.
         need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply
         publishing tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the
         same camp as the bloggers  [yes, i think it needs to be clear that
         their damage will be similar to what bloggers or wikileaks can
         do--limited.  But maybe more a danger to themselves, since they are
         no longer challenging governments, but criminal organizations]

          

         On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

           Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but
           there are several issues to address and fix here.

           These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
           discussion:

                o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but
           we can't gloss over that fact
                o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
           between stealing bank records from government computers and
           overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
           information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
           kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
           talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
           politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
           going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
           killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
           operational details, because they acted as informants, because
           they exposed links with officials or because they somehow sullied
           the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of information is
           damaging to the cartels themselves?
                o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
           realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure
           of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for
           the technical ability by a very small number of its members to
           infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal information.
           Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on a network that
           is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
           information be found? Government databases? Once we know what kind
           of information is accessible, we can also know more about the
           consequences of dissemination.
                o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
           back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings
           done by people who may not understand the difference between an
           anon hacker and a blogger.

           On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

             wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

             -------- Original Message --------

              Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                 From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
             Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                   To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

             you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a
             lot more work

             You need to lay out:

             a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section
             is unclear
             b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
             therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
             c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
             d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone
             who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

             I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
             insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant
             levels of sophistication in their online presence, to include
             the use of cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
             is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
             business online, in a protected fashion.

             Karen Hooper
             Latin America Analyst
             o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
             c: 512.750.7234
             STRATFOR
             www.stratfor.com
             On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

             On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             Link: themeData

             Trigger

             Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
             Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed
             out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
             denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released
             depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a screen?
             exactly when?.  With the most recent video release, Anonymous
             makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels. Threats such as
             releasing identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
             politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels.
             The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped
             member otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
             between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
             unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly different
             operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
             Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
             believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
             not believe for a second that the cartels have no experience
             with hackers.

              

             In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned
             as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their
             demands of releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned
             right up front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening
             to hit back. Provide enough details so we understand who this
             guy is and why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous'
             claims of possessing revealing information on cartel members and
             operations are true, cartels will likely respond with violence
             against individuals revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you
             mean Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public
             disclosure of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force the
             GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i
             don't understand what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten
             Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
             against Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will
             continue their threats against any individual using online media
             WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about
             bloggers here. against the cartels.

              

             The Battle Space

             Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
             realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere
             of the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience
             geographical boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
             exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They
             are physical people tho live in the real world. They have names
             and addresses - although most of them are likely outside of MX.)
              Anonymous' power base consists of their technical capabilities
             in hacking. Any information connected to the Internet is
             vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's of
             individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population
             could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
             has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big
             company with a website that brings in revenue, but it does not
             really matter if you don't run operations on the web. Los Z
             don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are also far less
             dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

             Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power
             base consists of the perceived anonymity that its members
             believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating
             through the internet. This gives an opening for people
             disgruntled by anything and everything to practice general
             dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity + audience = troll.
             Only a fraction of the large web of people who identify
             themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
             capability. 

             The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been
             from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

             The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
             Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
             maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
             commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
             and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight.
             There is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar
             capacity.  Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue
             and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
             experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels are
             always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence.
             While battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law
             Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in
             the flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted media
             outlets. Murdering journalists and online bloggers in order to
             cover details of their operations. ok... but that's kind of a
             red herrng for this discussion. You need to focus on the
             possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
             have no cyber presence.

              

             Anonymous' Weapons

             Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
             criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
             combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly
             disseminating sensitive information on cartels and propagating
             anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced websites in
             Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous
             admitted in their video to cartels, they cannot fight with
             guns.  The significance of a targeted information operations
             campaign by technically elite individuals can not be overlooked
             should not be underestimated. Cartels view main stream media
             outlets and social media blogs as such a threat to their
             operations, that they have continued to target journalists and
             bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was placed
             with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the body of a
             blogger. The message threatened any users who denounce cartels
             on blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not
             really addressing the subheading

             As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet
             risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest
             Anonymous is capable of possessing information they threaten to
             release. By releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
             Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
             individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
             information is limited by what is available via the Internet.
             Government computers connected to the Internet should always be
             considered a possibility of an attack. However, as with the
             compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer
             networks, information available to Mexico's intelligence
             collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to
             say here? This isn't clear at all

              

             Cartel's Defense

                         A counter response to the video? by the cartels has
             yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped
             member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the
             threat posed by hackers so... how has there not been a counter
             response? also this undermines your statements above about how
             Anonymous is soley internet based, and underlines the
             vulnerabilities of associated members. How did they find teh
             Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well give you
             some indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
             Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the
             cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed
             for them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies
             dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and
             we have good intel indicating that) they are working on
             disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can
             operate in any region of the world. Personal information
             including locations is only available if a hacker chooses to
             divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
             figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous. Cartels
             are only capable of dealing with their online enemy, if they can
             physically reach out to them. Or start employing hackers of
             their own under their payroll? Stranger things have happened,
             Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                         Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
             Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the
             help of computer science majors through personal threats has
             been reported in the past where? What cartels? reported where?. 
             Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence and drug
             trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of technical
             experts to help combat any threat by computer hackers.  While
             identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it
             is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
             operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies such
             as the FBi, with far more technical experience and resources
             than cartels, struggle to find hackers through investigations.
             A) How do you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they
             kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are
             equally difficult to track down

                         In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
             likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with,
             brute force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT
             operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they
             wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
             communities will likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel
             members.  Narco banners and public display of violence will
             likely continue to be used to scare online media into submission
             i'm not really seeing the online media-international hacking
             group connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
             inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
             encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of cartel
             violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will remain to be
             seen until cartels are able to seek out and capture members of
             the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the collective bluff
             and simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can
             inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:39:58",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/156693_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
156792,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   if anonymous outs taxi cab drivers working with Zeta, they are dead.  that
   is both simple and devastating.  If they release email accounts of GOM
   folks, and there are cartel members in that address book that would be
   devastating.  I think our definitions of devastating are different.  I
   agree the ability of these folks to bring down governments is minimal, but
   I am willing to bet the next deep throat scenario will come via a hacker
   and information they are able to steal. 

   On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already

     2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  The question is if the attack is high
     priority enough.  Many people assume there is no attribution because
     there is no response, but I don't think that is accurate. 
     has NSA told you otherwise?  i am unclear, are you saying the entire
     darknet is mapped, or could be mapped, only it isn't because the NSA
     doesn't care or doens't share? 
     3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new laptop and
     start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack involves much more than
     a recently bought laptop.  In the same way there is an attack cycle for
     a terrorist attack or crime, there is one for a cyber attack.  A very
     simple attack may be as hard to trace as a nearly-random mugging in the
     dark in a neighborhood with much more serious crime and no CCTV cameras.
     so simple=low damage, and complicated = more damage?  if you hacked
     Calderon's blackberry and found out who his contacts were, and one of
     them was Chapo's sister, it would be simple and devastating.  A more
     complicated attack, however, involves pre-operational surveillance,
     developing exploits, developing programs and code, gaining access,
     exploiting that, and carrying out an attack.  And that takes time,
     giving more time for your exposure. Look at everything that went into
     Stuxnet as a great example, that couldn't be done with one person with a
     new laptop.  All of this activity provides activity and evidence which
     helps for attribution.  Of course it is always possible to develop an
     attack, just like any other operation, that even the best law
     enforcement and national intelligence agencies have trouble or cannot
     attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that it's very difficult for
     someone to successfully use Anonymous as a cover and have NSA, GHQ, MID,
     Aman, etc, be unable to attribute it.  They may not choose to cover it
     if it is small scale crime, however. 
     On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored cyber
       warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing that, since
       you can conduct a cyber attack without associating with a hacker group
       and still deny / cover actions on behalf of the State. An individual
       attacking US computer assets from China, may be working by himself or
       on behalf of the Chinese government, but unless the US has other intel
       on the Chinese government's cyber warfare activities in order to
       corroborate there is little capability to distinguish.

       It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
       operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets from
       SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual responsible for
       hacking State run servers. In the past, I have turned to SIGINT
       organizations for collections on computer related material, but this
       was due to the US being behind in cyber warfare, and not knowing where
       to assign responsibility. However, this has changed dramatically in
       the last couple of years.

       Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As an
       extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go to a
       Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the online
       activity to something revealing (accessing personal email accounts,
       tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop, etc..), and
       begin hacking government email accounts then never use the laptop
       again. Unless LEA could get an accurate description of my appearance
       from Starbuck's patrons or possible security cameras, I can not think
       of way to identify me.

       Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to these
       enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied to specific
       computer-related activities because of the difficulty in identifying
       individuals.

       I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown, would
       be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a common
       participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a State?
       Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that State agent
       organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter buddies, what signs
       could a LEA look for to distinguish?

       On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a bit)

         1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything actually
         harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't, but i'm very
         doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first real case where
         they could do some minor damage--to individual people, not not to an
         organization or anything that would come as a serious or strategic
         threat. 

         2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is actually
         pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as a cover, but
         that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could probably still be
         attributed if important enough to those agencies.  The recent attack
         on Sony actually brings this issue up- Whoever is calling themselves
         anonymous denies they did it.  And keep in mind how much they have
         claimed an publicized attacks in the past, even before they were
         carried out.  The attack on the Playstation Network was more
         sophisticated than anonymous' usual work (though potentially
         coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that distracted Sony's IT
         security).  But whoever did it, again, no real damage came of it. 
         Congress is holding hearings over data security, but this is no
         different than the OC groups stealing your credit card information. 
         LE will go after them, have some success, but the threat is not that
         large. 
         On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

           Link: themeData

           I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to have a
           broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no nothing, or
           almost nothing about what this group is and the threat it poses.
           Reviewing their list of attacks
           (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most of
           the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood of the
           internet . The interesting thing when it comes to their
           interactions with the cartels is the dubious role they play: at
           the same time they can be fighting crime by revealing cartel
           members/supporters, but they can also put lives in risk.

           However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
           Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can
           conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
           (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

           If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
           websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to know
           more about these guys. Who they are? What are they interested in?
           How they operate? Who they have targeted so far? How can I defend
           myself from them? In what countries are they active? Should I
           worry about them at all? Can I use them to achieve any particular
           goal?

           On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

             nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else
             can build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they
             pose to innocent people caught up in the terror that is Mexico. 
             By focusing on journalists or taxi drivers they show little
             understanding of the situation.  This has long term implications
             in not just Mexico.  They don't consider the consequences of
             their actions and they act without understanding the
             environment.  It was the same when they released information on
             the Sony Playstation network to protest Sony.  They hurt
             innocent people to prove a point. 

             On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

               Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
               possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
               Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by
               Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on cartels
               as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
               find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the
               individual being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites
               (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it
               may be an individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the
               Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

               Link: themeData
               Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
               distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government
               websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
               statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a
               video depicting a masked individual addressing Mexican drug
               cartels on October 10? With the most recent video release,
               Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels in
               Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers,
               police, politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal
               cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow
               kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. In the
               Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
               day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands
               of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The potential of
               conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
               presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels
               lashing out at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any
               reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers
               before. 

               What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                    o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
               threat to Mexican cartels.
                    o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit
               online media
                    o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to
               lash out at cartels

               While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose
               a threat
                    o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
               identifiable information on cartel members
                    o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could
               acquire on cartels
                    o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
               communications, identifiable information on cartels members
               have to be considered in the realm of possibilities for
                           Anonymous
                           o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to
               reveal illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

               Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
               ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
               result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
               limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting in
               front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
               retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online
               assault of cartels.
                    o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
               journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some
               of these individuals are forced to collude with cartels.    
                         Taxi drivers are often victims of extortion or
               coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the identity of these
               individuals will not have a significant impact on cartel    
                             operations. Politicans have been accused of
               working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before,
               however there has yet to be any consequences from this.
                    o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent
               cartels are willing to go protect their operations.
                       o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                       o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
               community before, coercing computer science majors into
               working for them.
                       o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
               discovering hackers within Mexico.

                

               On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                 Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea
                 but there are several issues to address and fix here.

                 These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
                 discussion:

                      o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's
                 fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                      o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                 difference between stealing bank records from government
                 computers and overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                      o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
                 information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of
                 info is kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You
                 seem to be talking about identities, whose? If anything it's
                 dirty cops, politicians and businessmen who need to worry
                 about what anon is going to be saying. Think about why the
                 bloggers and media were killed in previous instances. Was it
                 because they revealed operational details, because they
                 acted as informants, because they exposed links with
                 officials or because they somehow sullied the cartel's
                 reputation? In short, what kind of information is damaging
                 to the cartels themselves?
                      o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon
                 can realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes
                 a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence
                 capacity except for the technical ability by a very small
                 number of its members to infiltrate certain networks and
                 databases and steal information. Now what kind of
                 information would a cartel keep on a network that is
                 connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else
                 could information be found? Government databases? Once we
                 know what kind of information is accessible, we can also
                 know more about the consequences of dissemination.
                      o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to
                 trace back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of
                 killings done by people who may not understand the
                 difference between an anon hacker and a blogger.

                 On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                   wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                   -------- Original Message --------

                    Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                       Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                       From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                   Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                         To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                   you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to
                   need a lot more work

                   You need to lay out:

                   a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger
                   section is unclear
                   b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is,
                   and therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
                   c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
                   anything
                   d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill
                   anyone who breaches their systems or exposes their
                   connections

                   I also just want to point out that we have reasonable
                   reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some
                   significant levels of sophistication in their online
                   presence, to include the use of cyber currencies and
                   significant IT capacity. There is no reason to assume that
                   Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
                   protected fashion.

                   Karen Hooper
                   Latin America Analyst
                   o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                   c: 512.750.7234
                   STRATFOR
                   www.stratfor.com
                   On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                   On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                   Link: themeData

                   Trigger

                   Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
                   Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?,
                   lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
                   statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including
                   a video released depicting...? a person talking? a voice?
                   words on a screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent
                   video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                   criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of
                   Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
                   journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker
                   group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member
                   otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
                   between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
                   unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly
                   different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a
                   conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have little
                   experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no
                   experience with the cartels. I do not believe for a second
                   that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                    

                   In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                   mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                   reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped member
                   this should be mentioned right up front. Cartels have a
                   member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back. Provide
                   enough details so we understand who this guy is and
                   why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims
                   of possessing revealing information on cartel members and
                   operations are true, cartels will likely respond with
                   violence against individuals revealed as opposing cartel
                   members huh? you mean Anonymous members?. It also is
                   likely that public disclosure of GOM officials who collude
                   with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving the
                   Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this
                   means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
                   effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against
                   Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will
                   continue their threats against any individual using online
                   media WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking
                   about bloggers here. against the cartels.

                    

                   The Battle Space

                   Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two
                   separate realities from each other. Anonymous operates
                   solely in sphere of the computer networks. Anonymous does
                   not experience geographical boundaries. All personalities
                   within Anonymous, exist solely in cyber space.  (That is
                   not entirely true. They are physical people tho live in
                   the real world. They have names and addresses - although
                   most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power
                   base consists of their technical capabilities in hacking.
                   Any information connected to the Internet is vulnerable to
                   exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's of individual
                   cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population could
                   be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
                   has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or
                   a big company with a website that brings in revenue, but
                   it does not really matter if you don't run operations on
                   the web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They
                   are also far less dependent on the web than the
                   jihadists.)

                   Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's
                   power base consists of the perceived anonymity that its
                   members believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by
                   operating through the internet. This gives an opening for
                   people disgruntled by anything and everything to practice
                   general dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity +
                   audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web of
                   people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any
                   sort of serious IT capability. 

                   The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has
                   been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

                   The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in
                   US and Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always
                   looking to maximize profits and expand. But they are
                   bricks and mortar commerce. Yes..... but they use the
                   internet to launder money and issue commands. We know that
                   Sinaloa does that from insight. There is no reason to
                   assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity. 
                   Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue and
                   escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
                   experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels
                   are always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel
                   violence. While battling each other, cartels still face
                   arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to
                   avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money,
                   cartels have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists
                   and online bloggers in order to cover details of their
                   operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for this
                   discussion. You need to focus on the possible
                   vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
                   have no cyber presence.

                    

                   Anonymous' Weapons

                   Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions
                   against criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous'
                   only ability to combat cartels lay in information
                   operations, mainly disseminating sensitive information on
                   cartels and propagating anti-cartel statements via social
                   media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean so far and
                   that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
                   cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance of
                   a targeted information operations campaign by technically
                   elite individuals can not be overlooked should not be
                   underestimated. Cartels view main stream media outlets and
                   social media blogs as such a threat to their operations,
                   that they have continued to target journalists and
                   bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was
                   placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the
                   body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
                   denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive
                   here, and it's not really addressing the subheading

                   As stated earlier, any information connected to the
                   internet risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample
                   reason to suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing
                   information they threaten to release. By releasing
                   identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
                   cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
                   individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
                   information is limited by what is available via the
                   Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
                   should always be considered a possibility of an attack.
                   However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the US
                   governments computer networks, information available to
                   Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy to
                   acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This isn't
                   clear at all

                    

                   Cartel's Defense

                               A counter response to the video? by the
                   cartels has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous'
                   claims of a kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los
                   Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by hackers
                   so... how has there not been a counter response? also this
                   undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is
                   soley internet based, and underlines the vulnerabilities
                   of associated members. How did they find teh Anonymous
                   member? The answer to that could very well give you some
                   indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
                   Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web
                   , the cartels will face a number of challenges which
                   rarely are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG
                   has whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in
                   cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good intel
                   indicating that) they are working on disrupting the
                   cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in any
                   region of the world. Personal information including
                   locations is only available if a hacker chooses to divulge
                   it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
                   figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous.
                   Cartels are only capable of dealing with their online
                   enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
                   employing hackers of their own under their payroll?
                   Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                               Cartels have been known to coerce the services
                   of Mexican citizens with a technical background.
                   Recruiting the help of computer science majors through
                   personal threats has been reported in the past where? What
                   cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels operate in the
                   world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they will
                   likely need the assistance of technical experts to help
                   combat any threat by computer hackers.  While identifying
                   bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is
                   unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
                   operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies
                   such as the FBi, with far more technical experience and
                   resources than cartels, struggle to find hackers through
                   investigations. A) How do you know they are not in Mexico?
                   (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume
                   that not all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                               In order to compete with an online foe,
                   cartels will likely continue counter tactics they are most
                   familiar with, brute force. Cartels are still capable of
                   their HUMINT operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would
                   we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged
                   connections to hacker communities will likely be targeted
                   and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and
                   public display of violence will likely continue to be used
                   to scare online media into submission i'm not really
                   seeing the online media-international hacking group
                   connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
                   inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
                   encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
                   cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will
                   remain to be seen until cartels are able to seek out and
                   capture members of the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could
                   call the collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off
                   any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

         --

         Sean Noonan

         Tactical Analyst

         Office: +1 512-279-9479

         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

         www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 22:29:35",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/156792_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
156805,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   As far as Aurora, I haven't followed it closely. Did they ever identify
   the attackers or number of attackers? I thought the target set was the
   only thing that led people to believe the Chinese government was
   responsible.

   2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
   responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating cyber
   intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case HUMINT is
   just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT capabilities does not
   indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers. NSA may have there own
   department for tracking hackers but it does not make it SIGINT.

   Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

   Wikipedia provides an indepth explanation on SIGINT . But in short, SIGINT
   is the capability in exploiting signals provided by communication devices,
   and what can be obtained by exploiting the signals. Combining computer
   network operations and SIGINT is innaccurate, because while SIGINT may be
   used with other intelligence disciplines in order to identify a hacker, it
   is not necessary and is no more related than any other intel discipline.
   SIGINT could help you identify a computer devices (not the operator)
   emitting a signal (wifi), and cryptanalysis, which is also separate from
   SIGINT but often used in conjunction, could help in providing methods to
   decrypt messages over a network, but SIGINT wouldn't obtain those
   messages.

   In order to exploit computer network operations, the operators involved
   are specifically trained in computer science disciplines and technologies
   tailored specifically for computer activity.

   NSA also is the primary agency for cryptanalysis. Because of technological
   demands of SIGINT and cryptanalysis, NSA has enormous resources in R&D, so
   I can see why the USG would move some CNO to NSA. But their SIGINT
   capabilities are not indicators of CNO capabilities.

   Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary labor for
   the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are discussing operations on
   the scale of causing physical damage to extremely sensitive equipment .
   Well, this is an example of a cyber attack that matters, whereeas
   Anonymous so far has not mattered.  You chose the most prolific example of
   a cyber attack (which the whole operation consisted mainly outside of the
   cyber attack itself). Anything that falls short of this doesn't matter?
   Define what matters. None of anonymous' attacks have physically damaged
   secret Iranian nuclear facilities, but I think you are downplaying too
   much the significance of exposing corporate secrets, halting businesses'
   revenues, and embarrassing State actors by defacing their websites.

   On 10/24/11 5:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     On 10/24/11 5:07 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already The USG
         arrested 10 Russian spies last year, are you willing to say foreign
         intel is not capable of conducting espionage undetected? No, of
         course not.  But I also would not argue that the SVR is so good to
         be immune to detection, as you are arguing with hackers.  I'm saying
         they are more detectable than you think.  There is no such thing as
         truly anonymous.  Everythign leaves a trail.  Will that trail in
         every instance lead to a single individual? no.  but it can lead to
         a place, an organization, and often, an individual. 

         2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
         responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating
         cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case
         HUMINT is just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT
         capabilities does not indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers.
         NSA may have there own department for tracking hackers but it does
         not make it SIGINT.

         Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

         The question is if the attack is high priority enough.  Many people
         assume there is no attribution because there is no response, but I
         don't think that is accurate.  Many people say this, because no
         attribution is one reason for no response.  Yes, they do, and if
         they think that is the primary reason for lack of response, then I
         think they are wrong. 

         3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new laptop
         and start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack involves much
         more than a recently bought laptop.  In the same way there is an
         attack cycle for a terrorist attack or crime, there is one for a
         cyber attack.  A very simple attack may be as hard to trace as a
         nearly-random mugging in the dark in a neighborhood with much more
         serious crime and no CCTV cameras.  A more complicated attack,
         however, involves pre-operational surveillance, developing exploits,
         developing programs and code, gaining access, exploiting that, and
         carrying out an attack.  Discovering exploits and writing code can
         be done entirely offline, out of sight of law enforcement or intel
         agencies. Pre-operational surveillance and gaining access (the point
         of the exploit you write offline) would fit in my example. The point
         is, if you don't link your computer to identifiable information, you
         remain anonymous. Just like people use certain methods to build
         IEDs, people use certain mehtods to design programs and code for
         cyber attacks.  Over time, those methods become identifiable and
         more and more attributable. This is, for example, how AURORA is
         linked back to the Chinese.  and very specific Chinese, I may add.
         Being connected or unconnected doesn't matter, eventually you have
         to use what you develop, or copy from someone, and all of those
         things can be analyzed.   And that takes time, giving more time for
         your exposure Exposure comes from network activity with the target,
         a lot of the pre-operational phase of an attack can occur without
         network activity. Look at everything that went into Stuxnet as a
         great example, that couldn't be done with one person with a new
         laptop. Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of
         necessary labor for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are
         discussing operations on the scale of causing physical damage to
         extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of a cyber
         attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not mattered.  
         All of this activity provides activity and evidence which helps for
         attribution.  Of course it is always possible to develop an attack,
         just like any other operation, that even the best law enforcement
         and national intelligence agencies have trouble or cannot
         attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that it's very difficult for
         someone to successfully use Anonymous as a cover and have NSA, GHQ,
         MID, Aman, etc, be unable to attribute it.  How do you know if NSA
         or GHQ is effective in identifying hackers?I don't, but I'm
         confident they are far better than you are allowing for.    They may
         not choose to cover it if it is small scale crime, however. 
         On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

           I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored
           cyber warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing
           that, since you can conduct a cyber attack without associating
           with a hacker group and still deny / cover actions on behalf of
           the State. An individual attacking US computer assets from China,
           may be working by himself or on behalf of the Chinese government,
           but unless the US has other intel on the Chinese government's
           cyber warfare activities in order to corroborate there is little
           capability to distinguish.

           It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
           operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets from
           SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual responsible
           for hacking State run servers. In the past, I have turned to
           SIGINT organizations for collections on computer related material,
           but this was due to the US being behind in cyber warfare, and not
           knowing where to assign responsibility. However, this has changed
           dramatically in the last couple of years.

           Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As an
           extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go to a
           Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the online
           activity to something revealing (accessing personal email
           accounts, tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop,
           etc..), and begin hacking government email accounts then never use
           the laptop again. Unless LEA could get an accurate description of
           my appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible security
           cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

           Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to
           these enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied to
           specific computer-related activities because of the difficulty in
           identifying individuals.

           I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown,
           would be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a common
           participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a State?
           Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that State
           agent organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter buddies, what
           signs could a LEA look for to distinguish?

           On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

             In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a
             bit)

             1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything
             actually harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't, but
             i'm very doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first real
             case where they could do some minor damage--to individual
             people, not not to an organization or anything that would come
             as a serious or strategic threat. 

             2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is actually
             pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as a cover,
             but that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could probably
             still be attributed if important enough to those agencies.  The
             recent attack on Sony actually brings this issue up- Whoever is
             calling themselves anonymous denies they did it.  And keep in
             mind how much they have claimed an publicized attacks in the
             past, even before they were carried out.  The attack on the
             Playstation Network was more sophisticated than anonymous' usual
             work (though potentially coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS
             attacks that distracted Sony's IT security).  But whoever did
             it, again, no real damage came of it.  Congress is holding
             hearings over data security, but this is no different than the
             OC groups stealing your credit card information.  LE will go
             after them, have some success, but the threat is not that
             large. 
             On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

               Link: themeData

               I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to
               have a broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no
               nothing, or almost nothing about what this group is and the
               threat it poses. Reviewing their list of attacks
               (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most
               of the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood
               of the internet . The interesting thing when it comes to their
               interactions with the cartels is the dubious role they play:
               at the same time they can be fighting crime by revealing
               cartel members/supporters, but they can also put lives in
               risk.

               However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
               Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can
               conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
               (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

               If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
               websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to
               know more about these guys. Who they are? What are they
               interested in? How they operate? Who they have targeted so
               far? How can I defend myself from them? In what countries are
               they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use them
               to achieve any particular goal?

               On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                 nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything
                 else can build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the
                 threat they pose to innocent people caught up in the terror
                 that is Mexico.  By focusing on journalists or taxi drivers
                 they show little understanding of the situation.  This has
                 long term implications in not just Mexico.  They don't
                 consider the consequences of their actions and they act
                 without understanding the environment.  It was the same when
                 they released information on the Sony Playstation network to
                 protest Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

                 On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                   Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of
                   discussing possible cartel responses, the focus is on what
                   type of threat Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video
                   released by Anonymous, threatens revealing personal
                   information on cartels as well as states a member had been
                   kidnapped. I could not find any sources outside of
                   Anonymous' claims of the individual being kidnapped.
                   According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and
                   Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual
                   posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the Operation
                   Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

                   Link: themeData
                   Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
                   distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government
                   websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with
                   a statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels,
                   including a video depicting a masked individual addressing
                   Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the most recent
                   video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                   criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing
                   identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
                   journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker
                   group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member
                   otherwise face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this
                   coming November 5th was mentioned as a day cartels could
                   expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of releasing a
                   kidnapped member are not met. The potential of conflict
                   between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents a
                   unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out
                   at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on
                   cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

                   What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                        o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical
                   security threat to Mexican cartels.
                        o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit
                   online media
                        o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico
                   to lash out at cartels

                   While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to
                   pose a threat
                        o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
                   identifiable information on cartel members
                        o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could
                   acquire on cartels
                        o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
                   communications, identifiable information on cartels
                   members have to be considered in the realm of
                   possibilities for
                               Anonymous
                               o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability
                   to reveal illicit online activity (child pornography
                   rings)

                   Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
                   ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
                   result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
                   limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting in
                   front of a computer, but this may blind them to any
                   possible retribution. They may not even know the impact of
                   any online assault of cartels.
                        o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
                   journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand
                   some of these individuals are forced to collude with
                   cartels.               Taxi drivers are often victims of
                   extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the
                   identity of these individuals will not have a significant
                   impact on cartel                   operations. Politicans
                   have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
                   Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be
                   any consequences from this.
                        o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent
                   cartels are willing to go protect their operations.
                           o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                           o    Cartels have reached out to the computer
                   science community before, coercing computer science majors
                   into working for them.
                           o    This provides the cartels with the
                   possibility of discovering hackers within Mexico.

                    

                   On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                     Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the
                     idea but there are several issues to address and fix
                     here.

                     These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with
                     the discussion:

                          o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why.
                     that's fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                          o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                     difference between stealing bank records from government
                     computers and overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                          o     There's no thought out process of what sort
                     of information could anon have on the cartels. What kind
                     of info is kept online and accessible to potential
                     attacks? You seem to be talking about identities, whose?
                     If anything it's dirty cops, politicians and businessmen
                     who need to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
                     Think about why the bloggers and media were killed in
                     previous instances. Was it because they revealed
                     operational details, because they acted as informants,
                     because they exposed links with officials or because
                     they somehow sullied the cartel's reputation? In short,
                     what kind of information is damaging to the cartels
                     themselves?
                          o     Once you identify this info - think about if
                     anon can realistically access it and disseminate it so
                     it causes a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any
                     intelligence capacity except for the technical ability
                     by a very small number of its members to infiltrate
                     certain networks and databases and steal information.
                     Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on a
                     network that is connected to the internet (aka no
                     intranet)? Where else could information be found?
                     Government databases? Once we know what kind of
                     information is accessible, we can also know more about
                     the consequences of dissemination.
                          o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel?
                     Sufficient to trace back attacks? If it's not, there
                     risks to be a lot of killings done by people who may not
                     understand the difference between an anon hacker and a
                     blogger.

                     On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                       wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                       -------- Original Message --------

                        Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                           Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                           From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                       Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                             To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                       you've got some of the issues here, but this is going
                       to need a lot more work

                       You need to lay out:

                       a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your
                       trigger section is unclear
                       b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence
                       is, and therefore their vulnerabilities and
                       capabilities
                       c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
                       anything
                       d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to
                       kill anyone who breaches their systems or exposes
                       their connections

                       I also just want to point out that we have reasonable
                       reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very least has
                       some significant levels of sophistication in their
                       online presence, to include the use of cyber
                       currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no
                       reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
                       business online, in a protected fashion.

                       Karen Hooper
                       Latin America Analyst
                       o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                       c: 512.750.7234
                       STRATFOR
                       www.stratfor.com
                       On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                       On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                       Link: themeData

                       Trigger

                       Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy,
                       hackers. Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group
                       famous for...?, lashed out at drug cartels via the
                       Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
                       criminal cartels, including a video released
                       depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a
                       screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent video
                       release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                       criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities
                       of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
                       politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal
                       cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a
                       fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences.
                       The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal
                       cartels and hackers, presents an unprecedented war
                       front for the cartels. The vastly different operations
                       of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
                       Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in
                       handling. i believe that Anonymous has no experience
                       with the cartels. I do not believe for a second that
                       the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                        

                       In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                       mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                       reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped
                       member this should be mentioned right up front.
                       Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit
                       back. Provide enough details so we understand who this
                       guy is and why/how he was abducted. are not met. If
                       Anonymous' claims of possessing revealing information
                       on cartel members and operations are true, cartels
                       will likely respond with violence against individuals
                       revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you mean
                       Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public
                       disclosure of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will
                       force the GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous
                       threat complexity i don't understand what this means.
                       You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
                       effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
                       against Anonymous remains unanswered . However,
                       cartels will continue their threats against any
                       individual using online media WC.... you mean tools?
                       or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers here.
                       against the cartels.

                        

                       The Battle Space

                       Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two
                       separate realities from each other. Anonymous operates
                       solely in sphere of the computer networks. Anonymous
                       does not experience geographical boundaries. All
                       personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in cyber
                       space.  (That is not entirely true. They are physical
                       people tho live in the real world. They have names and
                       addresses - although most of them are likely outside
                       of MX.)  Anonymous' power base consists of their
                       technical capabilities in hacking. Any information
                       connected to the Internet is vulnerable to exploits by
                       hackers. (Identifying the pc's of individual cartel
                       members in the midst of Mexico's population could be
                       quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
                       has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
                       Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings
                       in revenue, but it does not really matter if you don't
                       run operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money
                       via e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on
                       the web than the jihadists.)

                       Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's
                       power base consists of the perceived anonymity that
                       its members believe themselves to have, real or
                       otherwise, by operating through the internet. This
                       gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
                       and everything to practice general dickery. As the
                       popular meme goes, anonymity + audience = troll. Only
                       a fraction of the large web of people who identify
                       themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
                       capability. 

                       The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far
                       has been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement
                       Agencies.

                       The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets
                       in US and Mexican cities. They are run as a business,
                       always looking to maximize profits and expand. But
                       they are bricks and mortar commerce. Yes..... but they
                       use the internet to launder money and issue commands.
                       We know that Sinaloa does that from insight. There is
                       no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a
                       similar capacity.  Their power base is built by large
                       amounts of revenue and escalating brutal violence.
                       Cartels like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing
                       different types of threats. Cartels are always
                       suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence.
                       While battling each other, cartels still face arrests
                       by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid
                       any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
                       have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and
                       online bloggers in order to cover details of their
                       operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for
                       this discussion. You need to focus on the possible
                       vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
                       have no cyber presence.

                        

                       Anonymous' Weapons

                       Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions
                       against criminal cartels has yet to be seen.
                       Anonymous' only ability to combat cartels lay in
                       information operations, mainly disseminating sensitive
                       information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel
                       statements via social media and defaced websites in
                       Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As
                       Anonymous admitted in their video to cartels, they
                       cannot fight with guns.  The significance of a
                       targeted information operations campaign by
                       technically elite individuals can not be overlooked
                       should not be underestimated. Cartels view main stream
                       media outlets and social media blogs as such a threat
                       to their operations, that they have continued to
                       target journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message
                       signed by Los Zetas was placed with a dead female
                       body  more relevantly, on the body of a blogger. The
                       message threatened any users who denounce cartels on
                       blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's
                       not really addressing the subheading

                       As stated earlier, any information connected to the
                       internet risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample
                       reason to suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing
                       information they threaten to release. By releasing
                       identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
                       cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
                       individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate
                       sensitive information is limited by what is available
                       via the Internet. Government computers connected to
                       the Internet should always be considered a possibility
                       of an attack. However, as with the compartmentalized
                       nature of the US governments computer networks,
                       information available to Mexico's intelligence
                       collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you
                       trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

                        

                       Cartel's Defense

                                   A counter response to the video? by the
                       cartels has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous'
                       claims of a kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los
                       Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by
                       hackers so... how has there not been a counter
                       response? also this undermines your statements above
                       about how Anonymous is soley internet based, and
                       underlines the vulnerabilities of associated members.
                       How did they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to
                       that could very well give you some indication to the
                       technical ability of the cartels . As Anonymous exists
                       in abstract reality of the world wide web , the
                       cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely
                       are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has
                       whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in
                       cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good intel
                       indicating that) they are working on disrupting the
                       cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in
                       any region of the world. Personal information
                       including locations is only available if a hacker
                       chooses to divulge it or if the subject of the attack
                       is savvy enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only
                       work for Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of
                       dealing with their online enemy, if they can
                       physically reach out to them. Or start employing
                       hackers of their own under their payroll? Stranger
                       things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                                   Cartels have been known to coerce the
                       services of Mexican citizens with a technical
                       background. Recruiting the help of computer science
                       majors through personal threats has been reported in
                       the past where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since
                       cartels operate in the world of urban violence and
                       drug trafficking, they will likely need the assistance
                       of technical experts to help combat any threat by
                       computer hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside
                       of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is unlikely
                       cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
                       operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement
                       agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
                       experience and resources than cartels, struggle to
                       find hackers through investigations. A) How do you
                       know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they
                       kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not all
                       hackers are equally difficult to track down

                                   In order to compete with an online foe,
                       cartels will likely continue counter tactics they are
                       most familiar with, brute force. Cartels are still
                       capable of their HUMINT operations within Mexico
                       \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?. 
                       Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
                       communities will likely be targeted and interrogated
                       by cartel members.  Narco banners and public display
                       of violence will likely continue to be used to scare
                       online media into submission i'm not really seeing the
                       online media-international hacking group connection
                       here.  The cruel manners in which cartels inflict
                       harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
                       encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
                       cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous
                       will remain to be seen until cartels are able to seek
                       out and capture members of the hacker group.. Or the
                       Narcos could call the collective bluff and simply go
                       on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can
                       inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

             --

             Sean Noonan

             Tactical Analyst

             Office: +1 512-279-9479

             Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

             Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

             www.stratfor.com

         --

         Sean Noonan

         Tactical Analyst

         Office: +1 512-279-9479

         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

         www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-25 02:33:59",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/156805_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
157019,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Sean, just to be clear

   Your point is that Anonymous hasn't mattered?  Is your argument that
   hackers haven't mattered either?  because if Anonymous is a mob of hackers
   as you argue, how haven't they mattered to their targets?  what about all
   the money spent fighting them?  and as Tristan just pointed out - how
   about HBGary Federal?  He said the CEO's SSN and address were posted on
   Twitter.  What about all the sensitive emails that were lost?  We have no
   way of knowing what was in those emails, or how they are being used to
   make money at the expense of HBGary.  I have always agreed that they
   haven't reached a level of threat to the US, but that surely doesn't mean
   they won't.  And there are quite a few countries, organizations, and
   people below that rather high standard who could not withstand an attack,
   including an email purge of personal emails onto the web. 

   On 10/24/11 7:33 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     As far as Aurora, I haven't followed it closely. Did they ever identify
     the attackers or number of attackers? I thought the target set was the
     only thing that led people to believe the Chinese government was
     responsible.

     2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
     responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating cyber
     intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case HUMINT is
     just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT capabilities does not
     indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers. NSA may have there own
     department for tracking hackers but it does not make it SIGINT.

     Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

     Wikipedia provides an indepth explanation on SIGINT . But in short,
     SIGINT is the capability in exploiting signals provided by communication
     devices, and what can be obtained by exploiting the signals. Combining
     computer network operations and SIGINT is innaccurate, because while
     SIGINT may be used with other intelligence disciplines in order to
     identify a hacker, it is not necessary and is no more related than any
     other intel discipline. SIGINT could help you identify a computer
     devices (not the operator) emitting a signal (wifi), and cryptanalysis,
     which is also separate from SIGINT but often used in conjunction, could
     help in providing methods to decrypt messages over a network, but SIGINT
     wouldn't obtain those messages.

     In order to exploit computer network operations, the operators involved
     are specifically trained in computer science disciplines and
     technologies tailored specifically for computer activity.

     NSA also is the primary agency for cryptanalysis. Because of
     technological demands of SIGINT and cryptanalysis, NSA has enormous
     resources in R&D, so I can see why the USG would move some CNO to NSA.
     But their SIGINT capabilities are not indicators of CNO capabilities.

     Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary labor
     for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are discussing
     operations on the scale of causing physical damage to extremely
     sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of a cyber attack that
     matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not mattered.  You chose the most
     prolific example of a cyber attack (which the whole operation consisted
     mainly outside of the cyber attack itself). Anything that falls short of
     this doesn't matter? Define what matters. None of anonymous' attacks
     have physically damaged secret Iranian nuclear facilities, but I think
     you are downplaying too much the significance of exposing corporate
     secrets, halting businesses' revenues, and embarrassing State actors by
     defacing their websites.

     On 10/24/11 5:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

       On 10/24/11 5:07 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

         On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

           1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already The USG
           arrested 10 Russian spies last year, are you willing to say
           foreign intel is not capable of conducting espionage undetected?
           No, of course not.  But I also would not argue that the SVR is so
           good to be immune to detection, as you are arguing with hackers. 
           I'm saying they are more detectable than you think.  There is no
           such thing as truly anonymous.  Everythign leaves a trail.  Will
           that trail in every instance lead to a single individual? no.  but
           it can lead to a place, an organization, and often, an
           individual. 

           2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
           responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating
           cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this
           case HUMINT is just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT
           capabilities does not indicate its capabilities in tracking
           hackers. NSA may have there own department for tracking hackers
           but it does not make it SIGINT.

           Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

           The question is if the attack is high priority enough.  Many
           people assume there is no attribution because there is no
           response, but I don't think that is accurate.  Many people say
           this, because no attribution is one reason for no response.  Yes,
           they do, and if they think that is the primary reason for lack of
           response, then I think they are wrong. 

           3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new
           laptop and start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack
           involves much more than a recently bought laptop.  In the same way
           there is an attack cycle for a terrorist attack or crime, there is
           one for a cyber attack.  A very simple attack may be as hard to
           trace as a nearly-random mugging in the dark in a neighborhood
           with much more serious crime and no CCTV cameras.  A more
           complicated attack, however, involves pre-operational
           surveillance, developing exploits, developing programs and code,
           gaining access, exploiting that, and carrying out an attack. 
           Discovering exploits and writing code can be done entirely
           offline, out of sight of law enforcement or intel agencies.
           Pre-operational surveillance and gaining access (the point of the
           exploit you write offline) would fit in my example. The point is,
           if you don't link your computer to identifiable information, you
           remain anonymous. Just like people use certain methods to build
           IEDs, people use certain mehtods to design programs and code for
           cyber attacks.  Over time, those methods become identifiable and
           more and more attributable. This is, for example, how AURORA is
           linked back to the Chinese.  and very specific Chinese, I may add.
           Being connected or unconnected doesn't matter, eventually you have
           to use what you develop, or copy from someone, and all of those
           things can be analyzed.   And that takes time, giving more time
           for your exposure Exposure comes from network activity with the
           target, a lot of the pre-operational phase of an attack can occur
           without network activity. Look at everything that went into
           Stuxnet as a great example, that couldn't be done with one person
           with a new laptop. Writing the code and hacking was just a small
           part of necessary labor for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't
           think we are discussing operations on the scale of causing
           physical damage to extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is
           an example of a cyber attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so
           far has not mattered.   All of this activity provides activity and
           evidence which helps for attribution.  Of course it is always
           possible to develop an attack, just like any other operation, that
           even the best law enforcement and national intelligence agencies
           have trouble or cannot attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that
           it's very difficult for someone to successfully use Anonymous as a
           cover and have NSA, GHQ, MID, Aman, etc, be unable to attribute
           it.  How do you know if NSA or GHQ is effective in identifying
           hackers?I don't, but I'm confident they are far better than you
           are allowing for.    They may not choose to cover it if it is
           small scale crime, however. 
           On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored
             cyber warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing
             that, since you can conduct a cyber attack without associating
             with a hacker group and still deny / cover actions on behalf of
             the State. An individual attacking US computer assets from
             China, may be working by himself or on behalf of the Chinese
             government, but unless the US has other intel on the Chinese
             government's cyber warfare activities in order to corroborate
             there is little capability to distinguish.

             It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
             operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets
             from SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual
             responsible for hacking State run servers. In the past, I have
             turned to SIGINT organizations for collections on computer
             related material, but this was due to the US being behind in
             cyber warfare, and not knowing where to assign responsibility.
             However, this has changed dramatically in the last couple of
             years.

             Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As
             an extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go
             to a Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the
             online activity to something revealing (accessing personal email
             accounts, tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop,
             etc..), and begin hacking government email accounts then never
             use the laptop again. Unless LEA could get an accurate
             description of my appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible
             security cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

             Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to
             these enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied
             to specific computer-related activities because of the
             difficulty in identifying individuals.

             I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown,
             would be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a
             common participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a
             State? Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that
             State agent organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter
             buddies, what signs could a LEA look for to distinguish?

             On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

               In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a
               bit)

               1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything
               actually harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't,
               but i'm very doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first
               real case where they could do some minor damage--to individual
               people, not not to an organization or anything that would come
               as a serious or strategic threat. 

               2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is
               actually pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as
               a cover, but that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could
               probably still be attributed if important enough to those
               agencies.  The recent attack on Sony actually brings this
               issue up- Whoever is calling themselves anonymous denies they
               did it.  And keep in mind how much they have claimed an
               publicized attacks in the past, even before they were carried
               out.  The attack on the Playstation Network was more
               sophisticated than anonymous' usual work (though potentially
               coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that distracted
               Sony's IT security).  But whoever did it, again, no real
               damage came of it.  Congress is holding hearings over data
               security, but this is no different than the OC groups stealing
               your credit card information.  LE will go after them, have
               some success, but the threat is not that large. 
               On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

                 Link: themeData

                 I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to
                 have a broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no
                 nothing, or almost nothing about what this group is and the
                 threat it poses. Reviewing their list of attacks
                 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in
                 most of the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin
                 Hood of the internet . The interesting thing when it comes
                 to their interactions with the cartels is the dubious role
                 they play: at the same time they can be fighting crime by
                 revealing cartel members/supporters, but they can also put
                 lives in risk.

                 However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
                 Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth,
                 can conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
                 (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

                 If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
                 websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to
                 know more about these guys. Who they are? What are they
                 interested in? How they operate? Who they have targeted so
                 far? How can I defend myself from them? In what countries
                 are they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use
                 them to achieve any particular goal?

                 On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                   nice.  i still think the central focus, and what
                   everything else can build off of, is that Anonymous
                   doesn't know the threat they pose to innocent people
                   caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing on
                   journalists or taxi drivers they show little understanding
                   of the situation.  This has long term implications in not
                   just Mexico.  They don't consider the consequences of
                   their actions and they act without understanding the
                   environment.  It was the same when they released
                   information on the Sony Playstation network to protest
                   Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

                   On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                     Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of
                     discussing possible cartel responses, the focus is on
                     what type of threat Anonymous can pose to cartels. The
                     video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing
                     personal information on cartels as well as states a
                     member had been kidnapped. I could not find any sources
                     outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being
                     kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous
                     Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be
                     an individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the
                     Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is
                     speculation.

                     Link: themeData
                     Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
                     distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on
                     government websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the
                     Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's criminal
                     cartels, including a video depicting a masked individual
                     addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the
                     most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats
                     towards the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as
                     releasing identities of taxi drivers, police,
                     politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal
                     cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a
                     fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. In
                     the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                     mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                     reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped
                     member are not met. The potential of conflict between
                     Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents a unique
                     threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out at
                     online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on
                     cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

                     What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                          o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical
                     security threat to Mexican cartels.
                          o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to
                     exploit online media
                          o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico
                     to lash out at cartels

                     While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to
                     pose a threat
                          o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to
                     possess identifiable information on cartel members
                          o     It is unknown what information Anonymous
                     could acquire on cartels
                          o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
                     communications, identifiable information on cartels
                     members have to be considered in the realm of
                     possibilities for
                                 Anonymous
                                 o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability
                     to reveal illicit online activity (child pornography
                     rings)

                     Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
                     ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
                     result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
                     limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting
                     in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any
                     possible retribution. They may not even know the impact
                     of any online assault of cartels.
                          o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
                     journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not
                     understand some of these individuals are forced to
                     collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are
                     often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
                     halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals
                     will not have a significant impact on cartel            
                           operations. Politicans have been accused of
                     working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor)
                     before, however there has yet to be any consequences
                     from this.
                          o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the
                     extent cartels are willing to go protect their
                     operations.
                             o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                             o    Cartels have reached out to the computer
                     science community before, coercing computer science
                     majors into working for them.
                             o    This provides the cartels with the
                     possibility of discovering hackers within Mexico.

                      

                     On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                       Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the
                       idea but there are several issues to address and fix
                       here.

                       These are the bullets of my main analytical concern
                       with the discussion:

                            o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why.
                       that's fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                            o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                       difference between stealing bank records from
                       government computers and overloading www.loszetas.com
                       main page.
                            o     There's no thought out process of what sort
                       of information could anon have on the cartels. What
                       kind of info is kept online and accessible to
                       potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
                       identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
                       politicians and businessmen who need to worry about
                       what anon is going to be saying. Think about why the
                       bloggers and media were killed in previous instances.
                       Was it because they revealed operational details,
                       because they acted as informants, because they exposed
                       links with officials or because they somehow sullied
                       the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
                       information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                            o     Once you identify this info - think about
                       if anon can realistically access it and disseminate it
                       so it causes a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have
                       any intelligence capacity except for the technical
                       ability by a very small number of its members to
                       infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal
                       information. Now what kind of information would a
                       cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
                       internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
                       information be found? Government databases? Once we
                       know what kind of information is accessible, we can
                       also know more about the consequences of
                       dissemination.
                            o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel?
                       Sufficient to trace back attacks? If it's not, there
                       risks to be a lot of killings done by people who may
                       not understand the difference between an anon hacker
                       and a blogger.

                       On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                         wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                         -------- Original Message --------

                          Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                             Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                             From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                         Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                               To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                         you've got some of the issues here, but this is
                         going to need a lot more work

                         You need to lay out:

                         a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your
                         trigger section is unclear
                         b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence
                         is, and therefore their vulnerabilities and
                         capabilities
                         c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high
                         security anything
                         d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to
                         kill anyone who breaches their systems or exposes
                         their connections

                         I also just want to point out that we have
                         reasonable reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very
                         least has some significant levels of sophistication
                         in their online presence, to include the use of
                         cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
                         is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also
                         conduct business online, in a protected fashion.

                         Karen Hooper
                         Latin America Analyst
                         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                         c: 512.750.7234
                         STRATFOR
                         www.stratfor.com
                         On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                         On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                         Link: themeData

                         Trigger

                         Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy,
                         hackers. Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group
                         famous for...?, lashed out at drug cartels via the
                         Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
                         criminal cartels, including a video released
                         depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a
                         screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent video
                         release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                         criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing
                         identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers,
                         police, politicians, and journalists who collude
                         with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los
                         Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
                         face consequences. The potential of conflict between
                         Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
                         unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly
                         different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas
                         leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have
                         little experience in handling. i believe that
                         Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
                         not believe for a second that the cartels have no
                         experience with hackers.

                          

                         In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
                         was mentioned as a day cartels could expect
                         Anonymous' reaction if their demands of releasing a
                         kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up
                         front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is
                         threatening to hit back. Provide enough details so
                         we understand who this guy is and why/how he was
                         abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of
                         possessing revealing information on cartel members
                         and operations are true, cartels will likely respond
                         with violence against individuals revealed as
                         opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous
                         members?. It also is likely that public disclosure
                         of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force
                         the GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat
                         complexity i don't understand what this means. You
                         mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
                         effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
                         against Anonymous remains unanswered . However,
                         cartels will continue their threats against any
                         individual using online media WC.... you mean tools?
                         or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers here.
                         against the cartels.

                          

                         The Battle Space

                         Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two
                         separate realities from each other. Anonymous
                         operates solely in sphere of the computer networks.
                         Anonymous does not experience geographical
                         boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
                         exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely
                         true. They are physical people tho live in the real
                         world. They have names and addresses - although most
                         of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power
                         base consists of their technical capabilities in
                         hacking. Any information connected to the Internet
                         is vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying
                         the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst
                         of Mexico's population could be quite difficult.
                          Remember that most of what Anonymous has done are
                         DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big
                         company with a website that brings in revenue, but
                         it does not really matter if you don't run
                         operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money
                         via e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on
                         the web than the jihadists.)

                         Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but
                         it's power base consists of the perceived anonymity
                         that its members believe themselves to have, real or
                         otherwise, by operating through the internet. This
                         gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
                         and everything to practice general dickery. As the
                         popular meme goes, anonymity + audience = troll.
                         Only a fraction of the large web of people who
                         identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of
                         serious IT capability. 

                         The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so
                         far has been from targeted arrests by Law
                         Enforcement Agencies.

                         The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the
                         streets in US and Mexican cities. They are run as a
                         business, always looking to maximize profits and
                         expand. But they are bricks and mortar commerce.
                         Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
                         and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that
                         from insight. There is no reason to assume that Los
                         Zetas don't have a similar capacity.  Their power
                         base is built by large amounts of revenue and
                         escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas,
                         are experienced in facing different types of
                         threats. Cartels are always suffering at the hands
                         of cartel on cartel violence. While battling each
                         other, cartels still face arrests by Law Enforcement
                         Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in
                         the flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted
                         media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
                         bloggers in order to cover details of their
                         operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng
                         for this discussion. You need to focus on the
                         possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just
                         assume they have no cyber presence.

                          

                         Anonymous' Weapons

                         Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous'
                         actions against criminal cartels has yet to be seen.
                         Anonymous' only ability to combat cartels lay in
                         information operations, mainly disseminating
                         sensitive information on cartels and propagating
                         anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced
                         websites in Mexico you mean so far and that we know
                         of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
                         cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The
                         significance of a targeted information operations
                         campaign by technically elite individuals can not be
                         overlooked should not be underestimated. Cartels
                         view main stream media outlets and social media
                         blogs as such a threat to their operations, that
                         they have continued to target journalists and
                         bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas
                         was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly,
                         on the body of a blogger. The message threatened any
                         users who denounce cartels on blogging websites.
                         getting repetitive here, and it's not really
                         addressing the subheading

                         As stated earlier, any information connected to the
                         internet risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is
                         ample reason to suggest Anonymous is capable of
                         possessing information they threaten to release. By
                         releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
                         Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of
                         those individuals. Anonymous's ability to
                         disseminate sensitive information is limited by what
                         is available via the Internet. Government computers
                         connected to the Internet should always be
                         considered a possibility of an attack. However, as
                         with the compartmentalized nature of the US
                         governments computer networks, information available
                         to Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy
                         to acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This
                         isn't clear at all

                          

                         Cartel's Defense

                                     A counter response to the video? by the
                         cartels has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous'
                         claims of a kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest
                         Los Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by
                         hackers so... how has there not been a counter
                         response? also this undermines your statements above
                         about how Anonymous is soley internet based, and
                         underlines the vulnerabilities of associated
                         members. How did they find teh Anonymous member? The
                         answer to that could very well give you some
                         indication to the technical ability of the cartels .
                         As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
                         wide web , the cartels will face a number of
                         challenges which rarely are posed for them Again,
                         how do you know? The USG has whole agencies
                         dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can
                         assume (and we have good intel indicating that) they
                         are working on disrupting the cartels.. Hackers
                         threatening cartels, can operate in any region of
                         the world. Personal information including locations
                         is only available if a hacker chooses to divulge it
                         or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
                         figure it out. Hackers don't only work for
                         Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with
                         their online enemy, if they can physically reach out
                         to them. Or start employing hackers of their own
                         under their payroll? Stranger things have happened,
                         Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                                     Cartels have been known to coerce the
                         services of Mexican citizens with a technical
                         background. Recruiting the help of computer science
                         majors through personal threats has been reported in
                         the past where? What cartels? reported where?. 
                         Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence
                         and drug trafficking, they will likely need the
                         assistance of technical experts to help combat any
                         threat by computer hackers.  While identifying
                         bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it
                         is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any
                         hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
                         enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more
                         technical experience and resources than cartels,
                         struggle to find hackers through investigations. A)
                         How do you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the
                         guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that
                         not all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                                     In order to compete with an online foe,
                         cartels will likely continue counter tactics they
                         are most familiar with, brute force. Cartels are
                         still capable of their HUMINT operations within
                         Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't
                         be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
                         communities will likely be targeted and interrogated
                         by cartel members.  Narco banners and public display
                         of violence will likely continue to be used to scare
                         online media into submission i'm not really seeing
                         the online media-international hacking group
                         connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
                         inflict harm, is something computer hackers have
                         unlikely encountered before in their life. Whether
                         the fear of cartel violence softens the confidence
                         of Anonymous will remain to be seen until cartels
                         are able to seek out and capture members of the
                         hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the
                         collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off any
                         inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

               --

               Sean Noonan

               Tactical Analyst

               Office: +1 512-279-9479

               Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

               Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

               www.stratfor.com

           --

           Sean Noonan

           Tactical Analyst

           Office: +1 512-279-9479

           Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

           Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

           www.stratfor.com

       --

       Sean Noonan

       Tactical Analyst

       Office: +1 512-279-9479

       Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

       Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

       www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-25 02:47:49",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/157019_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
157077,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Yes, in response to your first question. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Colby Martin\" <colby.martin@stratfor.com>
   To: analysts@stratfor.com
   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:47:49 PM
   Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels

   Sean, just to be clear

   Your point is that Anonymous hasn't mattered?  Is your argument that
   hackers haven't mattered either?  because if Anonymous is a mob of hackers
   as you argue, how haven't they mattered to their targets?  what about all
   the money spent fighting them?  and as Tristan just pointed out - how
   about HBGary Federal?  He said the CEO's SSN and address were posted on
   Twitter.  What about all the sensitive emails that were lost?  We have no
   way of knowing what was in those emails, or how they are being used to
   make money at the expense of HBGary.  I have always agreed that they
   haven't reached a level of threat to the US, but that surely doesn't mean
   they won't.  And there are quite a few countries, organizations, and
   people below that rather high standard who could not withstand an attack,
   including an email purge of personal emails onto the web. 

   On 10/24/11 7:33 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     As far as Aurora, I haven't followed it closely. Did they ever identify
     the attackers or number of attackers? I thought the target set was the
     only thing that led people to believe the Chinese government was
     responsible.

     2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
     responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating cyber
     intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case HUMINT is
     just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT capabilities does not
     indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers. NSA may have there own
     department for tracking hackers but it does not make it SIGINT.

     Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

     Wikipedia provides an indepth explanation on SIGINT . But in short,
     SIGINT is the capability in exploiting signals provided by communication
     devices, and what can be obtained by exploiting the signals. Combining
     computer network operations and SIGINT is innaccurate, because while
     SIGINT may be used with other intelligence disciplines in order to
     identify a hacker, it is not necessary and is no more related than any
     other intel discipline. SIGINT could help you identify a computer
     devices (not the operator) emitting a signal (wifi), and cryptanalysis,
     which is also separate from SIGINT but often used in conjunction, could
     help in providing methods to decrypt messages over a network, but SIGINT
     wouldn't obtain those messages.

     In order to exploit computer network operations, the operators involved
     are specifically trained in computer science disciplines and
     technologies tailored specifically for computer activity.

     NSA also is the primary agency for cryptanalysis. Because of
     technological demands of SIGINT and cryptanalysis, NSA has enormous
     resources in R&D, so I can see why the USG would move some CNO to NSA.
     But their SIGINT capabilities are not indicators of CNO capabilities.

     Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary labor
     for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are discussing
     operations on the scale of causing physical damage to extremely
     sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of a cyber attack that
     matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not mattered.  You chose the most
     prolific example of a cyber attack (which the whole operation consisted
     mainly outside of the cyber attack itself). Anything that falls short of
     this doesn't matter? Define what matters. None of anonymous' attacks
     have physically damaged secret Iranian nuclear facilities, but I think
     you are downplaying too much the significance of exposing corporate
     secrets, halting businesses' revenues, and embarrassing State actors by
     defacing their websites.

     On 10/24/11 5:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

       On 10/24/11 5:07 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

         On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

           1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already The USG
           arrested 10 Russian spies last year, are you willing to say
           foreign intel is not capable of conducting espionage undetected?
           No, of course not.  But I also would not argue that the SVR is so
           good to be immune to detection, as you are arguing with hackers. 
           I'm saying they are more detectable than you think.  There is no
           such thing as truly anonymous.  Everythign leaves a trail.  Will
           that trail in every instance lead to a single individual? no.  but
           it can lead to a place, an organization, and often, an
           individual. 

           2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
           responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating
           cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this
           case HUMINT is just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT
           capabilities does not indicate its capabilities in tracking
           hackers. NSA may have there own department for tracking hackers
           but it does not make it SIGINT.

           Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

           The question is if the attack is high priority enough.  Many
           people assume there is no attribution because there is no
           response, but I don't think that is accurate.  Many people say
           this, because no attribution is one reason for no response.  Yes,
           they do, and if they think that is the primary reason for lack of
           response, then I think they are wrong. 

           3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new
           laptop and start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack
           involves much more than a recently bought laptop.  In the same way
           there is an attack cycle for a terrorist attack or crime, there is
           one for a cyber attack.  A very simple attack may be as hard to
           trace as a nearly-random mugging in the dark in a neighborhood
           with much more serious crime and no CCTV cameras.  A more
           complicated attack, however, involves pre-operational
           surveillance, developing exploits, developing programs and code,
           gaining access, exploiting that, and carrying out an attack. 
           Discovering exploits and writing code can be done entirely
           offline, out of sight of law enforcement or intel agencies.
           Pre-operational surveillance and gaining access (the point of the
           exploit you write offline) would fit in my example. The point is,
           if you don't link your computer to identifiable information, you
           remain anonymous. Just like people use certain methods to build
           IEDs, people use certain mehtods to design programs and code for
           cyber attacks.  Over time, those methods become identifiable and
           more and more attributable. This is, for example, how AURORA is
           linked back to the Chinese.  and very specific Chinese, I may add.
           Being connected or unconnected doesn't matter, eventually you have
           to use what you develop, or copy from someone, and all of those
           things can be analyzed.   And that takes time, giving more time
           for your exposure Exposure comes from network activity with the
           target, a lot of the pre-operational phase of an attack can occur
           without network activity. Look at everything that went into
           Stuxnet as a great example, that couldn't be done with one person
           with a new laptop. Writing the code and hacking was just a small
           part of necessary labor for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't
           think we are discussing operations on the scale of causing
           physical damage to extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is
           an example of a cyber attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so
           far has not mattered.   All of this activity provides activity and
           evidence which helps for attribution.  Of course it is always
           possible to develop an attack, just like any other operation, that
           even the best law enforcement and national intelligence agencies
           have trouble or cannot attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that
           it's very difficult for someone to successfully use Anonymous as a
           cover and have NSA, GHQ, MID, Aman, etc, be unable to attribute
           it.  How do you know if NSA or GHQ is effective in identifying
           hackers?I don't, but I'm confident they are far better than you
           are allowing for.    They may not choose to cover it if it is
           small scale crime, however. 
           On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored
             cyber warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing
             that, since you can conduct a cyber attack without associating
             with a hacker group and still deny / cover actions on behalf of
             the State. An individual attacking US computer assets from
             China, may be working by himself or on behalf of the Chinese
             government, but unless the US has other intel on the Chinese
             government's cyber warfare activities in order to corroborate
             there is little capability to distinguish.

             It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
             operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets
             from SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual
             responsible for hacking State run servers. In the past, I have
             turned to SIGINT organizations for collections on computer
             related material, but this was due to the US being behind in
             cyber warfare, and not knowing where to assign responsibility.
             However, this has changed dramatically in the last couple of
             years.

             Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As
             an extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go
             to a Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the
             online activity to something revealing (accessing personal email
             accounts, tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop,
             etc..), and begin hacking government email accounts then never
             use the laptop again. Unless LEA could get an accurate
             description of my appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible
             security cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

             Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to
             these enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied
             to specific computer-related activities because of the
             difficulty in identifying individuals.

             I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown,
             would be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a
             common participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a
             State? Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that
             State agent organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter
             buddies, what signs could a LEA look for to distinguish?

             On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

               In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a
               bit)

               1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything
               actually harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't,
               but i'm very doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first
               real case where they could do some minor damage--to individual
               people, not not to an organization or anything that would come
               as a serious or strategic threat. 

               2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is
               actually pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as
               a cover, but that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could
               probably still be attributed if important enough to those
               agencies.  The recent attack on Sony actually brings this
               issue up- Whoever is calling themselves anonymous denies they
               did it.  And keep in mind how much they have claimed an
               publicized attacks in the past, even before they were carried
               out.  The attack on the Playstation Network was more
               sophisticated than anonymous' usual work (though potentially
               coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that distracted
               Sony's IT security).  But whoever did it, again, no real
               damage came of it.  Congress is holding hearings over data
               security, but this is no different than the OC groups stealing
               your credit card information.  LE will go after them, have
               some success, but the threat is not that large. 
               On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

                 I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to
                 have a broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no
                 nothing, or almost nothing about what this group is and the
                 threat it poses. Reviewing their list of attacks
                 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in
                 most of the cases, they are the a**gooda** guys, sort of a
                 Robin Hood of the internet . The interesting thing when it
                 comes to their interactions with the cartels is the dubious
                 role they play: at the same time they can be fighting crime
                 by revealing cartel members/supporters, but they can also
                 put lives in risk.

                 However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
                 Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth,
                 can conduct a cyber attack under a**Anonymousa** is
                 worrisome.
                 (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

                 If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
                 websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to
                 know more about these guys. Who they are? What are they
                 interested in? How they operate? Who they have targeted so
                 far? How can I defend myself from them? In what countries
                 are they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use
                 them to achieve any particular goal?

                 On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                   nice.  i still think the central focus, and what
                   everything else can build off of, is that Anonymous
                   doesn't know the threat they pose to innocent people
                   caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing on
                   journalists or taxi drivers they show little understanding
                   of the situation.  This has long term implications in not
                   just Mexico.  They don't consider the consequences of
                   their actions and they act without understanding the
                   environment.  It was the same when they released
                   information on the Sony Playstation network to protest
                   Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

                   On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                     Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of
                     discussing possible cartel responses, the focus is on
                     what type of threat Anonymous can pose to cartels. The
                     video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing
                     personal information on cartels as well as states a
                     member had been kidnapped. I could not find any sources
                     outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being
                     kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous
                     Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be
                     an individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the
                     Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is
                     speculation.

                     Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
                     distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on
                     government websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the
                     Internet with a statements denouncing Mexicoa**s
                     criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked
                     individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on October
                     10? With the most recent video release, Anonymous makes
                     bold threats towards the criminal cartels in Mexico.
                     Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers,
                     police, politicians, and journalists who collude with
                     criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas
                     release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
                     consequences. In the Anonymousa** video, this coming
                     November 5th was mentioned as a day cartels could expect
                     Anonymousa** reaction if their demands of releasing a
                     kidnapped member are not met. The potential of conflict
                     between Mexicoa**s criminal cartels and hackers,
                     presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of
                     cartels lashing out at online bloggers, but I havena**t
                     seen any reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches
                     from hackers before. 

                     What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                         a*-c-    Anonymous would not pose a direct physical
                     security threat to Mexican cartels.
                         a*-c-    Anonymous' power base is the ability to
                     exploit online media
                         a*-c-    Anonymous hackers do not have to be in
                     Mexico to lash out at cartels

                     While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to
                     pose a threat
                         a*-c-    It is unknown if Anonymousa**s claims to
                     possess identifiable information on cartel members
                         a*-c-    It is unknown what information Anonymous
                     could acquire on cartels
                         a*-c-    Bank accounts, any online transactions or
                     communications, identifiable information on cartels
                     members have to be considered in the realm of
                     possibilities for
                                 Anonymous
                                 o    Anonymous has demonstrated ita**s
                     ability to reveal illicit online activity (child
                     pornography rings)

                     Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
                     ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
                     result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
                     limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting
                     in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any
                     possible retribution. They may not even know the impact
                     of any online assault of cartels.
                         a*-c-    Revealing information on taxi drivers and
                     journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not
                     understand some of these individuals are forced to
                     collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are
                     often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
                     halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals
                     will not have a significant impact on cartel            
                           operations. Politicans have been accused of
                     working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor)
                     before, however there has yet to be any consequences
                     from this.
                         a*-c-    Anonymous hackers may not understand the
                     extent cartels are willing to go protect their
                     operations.
                             o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                             o    Cartels have reached out to the computer
                     science community before, coercing computer science
                     majors into working for them.
                             o    This provides the cartels with the
                     possibility of discovering hackers within Mexico.

                      

                     On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                       Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the
                       idea but there are several issues to address and fix
                       here.

                       These are the bullets of my main analytical concern
                       with the discussion:

                           a*-c-    we don't know who got kidnapped or why.
                       that's fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                           a*-c-    \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                       difference between stealing bank records from
                       government computers and overloading www.loszetas.com
                       main page.
                           a*-c-    There's no thought out process of what
                       sort of information could anon have on the cartels.
                       What kind of info is kept online and accessible to
                       potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
                       identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
                       politicians and businessmen who need to worry about
                       what anon is going to be saying. Think about why the
                       bloggers and media were killed in previous instances.
                       Was it because they revealed operational details,
                       because they acted as informants, because they exposed
                       links with officials or because they somehow sullied
                       the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
                       information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                           a*-c-    Once you identify this info - think about
                       if anon can realistically access it and disseminate it
                       so it causes a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have
                       any intelligence capacity except for the technical
                       ability by a very small number of its members to
                       infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal
                       information. Now what kind of information would a
                       cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
                       internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
                       information be found? Government databases? Once we
                       know what kind of information is accessible, we can
                       also know more about the consequences of
                       dissemination.
                           a*-c-    What's the IT capacity of a cartel?
                       Sufficient to trace back attacks? If it's not, there
                       risks to be a lot of killings done by people who may
                       not understand the difference between an anon hacker
                       and a blogger.

                       On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                         wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                         -------- Original Message --------

                          Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                             Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                             From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                         Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                               To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                         you've got some of the issues here, but this is
                         going to need a lot more work

                         You need to lay out:

                         a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your
                         trigger section is unclear
                         b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence
                         is, and therefore their vulnerabilities and
                         capabilities
                         c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high
                         security anything
                         d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to
                         kill anyone who breaches their systems or exposes
                         their connections

                         I also just want to point out that we have
                         reasonable reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very
                         least has some significant levels of sophistication
                         in their online presence, to include the use of
                         cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
                         is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also
                         conduct business online, in a protected fashion.

                         Karen Hooper
                         Latin America Analyst
                         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                         c: 512.750.7234
                         STRATFOR
                         www.stratfor.com
                         On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                         On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                         --
                         Sean Noonan
                         Tactical Analyst
                         Office: +1 512-279-9479
                         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
                         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
                         www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-25 03:18:15",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/157077_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
157151,"[alpha] INSIGHT - AZ/RUSSIA/TURKEY/IRAN - the energy soap opera -
 AZ is in trouble
","   Met with the adviser to SOCAR president. The president is currently in
   Ankara trying to finalize negotiations with Turkey for gas transit. The
   adviser I met with is going to Brussels tomorrow to meet with NATO (will
   explain why further below.)

   The adviser is Western-educated, obviously knows how to handle himself in
   a negotiation, but opened up quite a bit in the discussion.

   The first step AZ is focusing on is to get this agreement with Turkey,
   which he gives a a 50/50 chance of being finalized tomorrow (Wednesday) in
   Ankara. The basic premise of the deal is Turkey guarantees purchase of 6
   bcm for its domestic market.  Turkey then has to guarantee 10 bcm for
   TRANSPORT (not necessarily purchase for itself) for Az's buyers in Europe.
   He couldn't disclose the price that they're currently negotiating over 6
   bcm, but said the Turkish press has been claiming some prices favorable of
   course to Turkish interests. He said though that the price was very much
   competitive in comparison to the high price TUrkey pays to Russia for its
   natural gas, and AZ understands that it needs to keep that price
   competitive to get this deal through. He said that Turkey and AZ have
   agreed on a price and that the remaining issues being negotiated right now
   have to do with technical details on quality of gas, regulations, etc.
   These are all 25 year contracts.  AZ's main priority right now is simply
   to guarantee somehow, some way that it will have a market for 16 bcm by
   2017.  The Azerbaijanis don't really care which route it takes (of course
   they're looking out for their financial interests,) but the main thing is
   to just make sure they are able to sell this amount of gas no matter what.
   (keep this in mind when it comes to Russia..)

   After AZ makes this agreement with Turkey, then it will decide which
   transport route is most feasible/favorable to their interests.  Contrary
   to what the press is saying, I don't get the impression at all that AZ is
   close to picking the transport route yet.  He explained all 8 main
   criteria that AZ uses to compare the different routes (ITGI, TAP, Nabucco,
   the most recent SEEP) - price of gas, tariff, transport, regulation,
   political feasibility, project feasibility, etc. He avoided saying if any
   one of these projects is more favorable than the others, but pointed out
   that there are issues with each. Nabucco of course is very ambitious and
   the funding for the project is unclear. (He referred to the fact that only
   Az is committed to supply.) For TAP he said it may be more technically
   feasible, then he said there were 'political problems' there. I asked
   whether he meant between Turkey and Greece and he said no, but if you look
   at the map it would go through Greece, Albania and Turkey, and 2 out of
   those 3 countries have issues with each other. (Didn't realize that the
   Greece-Albania/Macedonia factor was that big a deal in this, but
   apparently it is.) He also didn't seem too thrilled with ITGI, either,
   mainly blaming it on problems with Greek regulations and bureaucracy and
   being consumed with its own financial turmoil.  He seemed most interested
   in the South Eastern European Project, the most recent one that BP is
   involved in. The problem he said is that SEEP is not that mature yet in
   all the feasibility studies and what-not, but what's most attractive about
   it is that it requires far less construction and thus is less costly than
   the other 3 options.  There is no plan yet for sponsorship on SEEP.  SOCAR
   would need a significant stake in any of these projects as a major
   shareholder, but they haven't really advanced negotiations yet on this
   proposal with the energy firms expected to be involved from Hungary,
   Bulgaria, Romania.

   What is most interesting in all this is the Russian factor. The source
   would continue to emphasize how good and personal a relationship Aliyev
   has with Putin on these matters (as well as with top-management of
   Gazprom), but he would visibly become uncomfortable and shift in his seat
   whenever I brought up Russia. AZ understands completely that it has to
   pull off a very clever balancing act with the Russians if it intends to
   see any of these projects go through. The Russians are completely playing
   it cool. He said that the last major meeting Russia had with the
   Azerbaijanis on this was back in August. They're just watching and
   waiting.  I get the impression that the Russians are quite confident in
   the levers they have to further stall any of these alternate transit
   plans. He confirmed what I heard from another Azerbaijani diplomatic
   source earlier in the day about how in 2008 Azerbaijan made an offer to
   Russia to supply around 50 percent or so of its natural gas to the South
   Stream pipeline. This was AZ's way of making a concession to Russia to
   balance against its other energy projects that circumvent Russia.  Russia
   didn't bite, though.  The Russians gave them every excuse in the book,
   saying it wasn't technically or logistically feasible. Instead, the
   Russians said that if you want to deal, then make sure that all of AZ's 16
   bcm go through Russia, and Russia only -- not to Turkey/Europe. I asked if
   the Russians are still sticking to the same core demand today, and he said
   yes.  The Azerbaijanis are also trying to soften Russia by giving them all
   these rights on trans-Caspian route with Turkmenistan, but that's not
   working either. The AZ diplomatic source earlier in the day said that
   Russia has all these levers with Georgia already (they got the hint in
   2008 and knew Russia could have bombed BTC if it wanted to. The Russians
   also have a close relationship with Germany, which the Azerbaijanis have
   taken note of. What I'm getting from all this is that Azerbaijan is quite
   concerned that Russia may have what it takes to block these projects and
   throw off the timeline again for Shah Deniz II. SOCAR source said that
   Russia should know better than to use 'uncivilized' tactics in pursuing
   its energy interests (haha.)

   I asked both of these guys individually (the diplomatic source and the
   SOCAR source) whether that means AZ envisions having to eventually just
   give in and sell the bulk of its gas to Russia. Both reacted very
   similarly. They would look down, sigh and admit yes. Of course, AZ really,
   really does not want to do this. They don't want to become dependent on
   the Russians and know that the Russians would manipulate the hell out of
   those contracts. They're trying to convince Turkey that being so dependent
   on Russian gas is a very bad idea. It all comes down to Turkey. AZ
   absolutely needs Turkey to guarantee transit of this gas no matter what.
   If Turkey doesn't do this, AZ will have to turn back to Russia.

   What the diplomatic source stressed heavily is that the US simply isnt
   there the way it was in the 1990s when BTC was being negotiated. Back
   then, US was ready to drive that project home and force feed it to Russia.
   The Europeans don't even come close to that attitude. AZ doesn't have the
   political backing they need of an external power to see through these
   projects, in my opinion.

   I asked the SOCAR source what the plans are for expanding AZ energy
   transit to Russia. Right now AZ is exporting 1.5 bcm to Russia. He says
   that AZ wants to expand that to 2 bcm next year and then possibly expand
   to 3 bcm, but is worried that Russia will be pissed off and not agree if
   AZ and Turkey come to a deal. The currnet line to Russia is old and would
   need upgrades if they tried to reach capacity of around 7 bcm. Gazprom is
   happy to do these upgrades and more -- as long as AZ transports all 16 bcm
   to Russia first. They aren't budging on that demand.

   I asked SOCAR source if he says any shift out of Turkmenistan on
   trans-Caspian. He had an interesting reply on this -- basically, AZ's
   whole strategy on Turkmenistan is to steer clear and play nice with the
   Russians. AZ's firm policy on Turkmenistan is 'you guys sort out your
   political issues with Europe AND with Russia, get the financing, build the
   pipeline, and we guarantee you'll be able to transit gas through
   Azerbaijan.\" In other words, AZ does not want to get entangled in any
   Turkmenistan political issue with Russia. They are being extremely careful
   on that front. Don't expect any movement on this end any time soon.

   Then, I brought up the Iran factor, which I find the most fascinating in
   all this.  What I heard from the Israeli ambassador a few days ago was
   that there is another big issue cropping up with Shah Deniz II concerning
   Iran.  As part of AZ's geopolitical balancing act, it made sure Iran had a
   10% stake in the Shah Deniz consortium. Now, the US congress and sanctions
   lobby is ratcheting up the pressure saying that this makes the whole
   project sanctionable. The Israeli amb said that BP is now saying they may
   not be able to go through with the project unless AZ resolves this Iran
   issue. (What is ironic is that the SOCAR guy said they will work very
   closely with the Israeli lobby in DC to convince the congress that Iran is
   not a major problem). The guy also said that Iran is not a problem because
   1) they don't have the right of decision-making 2) SD phase II's revenue
   will go to a bank in Europe, in which Iran's money will be frozen. Source
   claims that Iranians basically agreed to participate in SD2 without
   getting an immediate interest. The SOCAR source said that BP hasn't put it
   in that blunt terms, but he admitted this is becoming a big issue. He
   described how impossible it's going to be for AZ to deal with this because
   the legislation already dictates that AZ can't simply 'kick out' a member
   of the consortium. The consortium shareholder must also agree to leave. 
   Plus, AZ really does not want to piss off the Iranians right now. The
   securitiy tensions are seriously increasing between AZ and Iran (will
   explain in more detail later), and the Israeli cooperation with AZ isn't
   really helping alleviate those tensions, either. Instead, AZ is trying to
   convince NATO (This is why SOCAR source is going to Brussels tomorrow as
   he later admitted,) and the US that the cost of trying to exclude Iran is
   not worth it. THey are trying to assure US, BP, NATO, etc. that Iran
   'can't profit' off the SHah Deniz project anyway because all the money
   they get from it is going to European banks where their assets are frozen
   (not a very convincing argument, if you ask me.)  More importantly,
   they're saying that if the US tries to make Shah Deniz II contingent on
   kicking Iran out, then the whole southeastern corridor project is doomed.
   In fact, AZ could just send 10 bcm to Iran instead at a very favorable
   price. He went on to say, 'better yet, we could give 5 bcm to Russia and 5
   bcm to Iran'.\" Then let's see what US says.

   This is a really tough negotiation that AZ is getting into right now. In
   December, AZ is sending a high-level delegation to the US to try to
   convince them to not screw this up over Iran. The source joked at the end
   that our conversation (which got pretty intense) was a good rehearsal for
   his meeting at NATO HQ in Brussels, where he basically has to give the
   argument that i just outlined. I think it's going to be very difficult for
   AZ to make this case, though. Should have more perspective on this issue
   from the Israelis after a dinner meeting tonight.

   Trying to make AZ into a Dubai - transit hub for flights, searching for
   niche in non-oil sector - cheaper for refueling for asia flights to stop
   in Baku, expand Elat port
","2011-10-25 15:03:16",1,"2012-03-02 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/157151_-alpha-insight-az-russia-turkey-iran-the-energy-soap-opera.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
157578,"[alpha] Occupy Wall Street (DHS analysis)
","3","2011-10-25 18:04:51",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/157578_-alpha-occupy-wall-street-dhs-analysis-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com","attach/13/13637_DHS IP Special.pdf"
159826,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored cyber
   warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing that, since you
   can conduct a cyber attack without associating with a hacker group and
   still deny / cover actions on behalf of the State. An individual attacking
   US computer assets from China, may be working by himself or on behalf of
   the Chinese government, but unless the US has other intel on the Chinese
   government's cyber warfare activities in order to corroborate there is
   little capability to distinguish.

   It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network operations do
   not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets from SIGINT would not
   directly help you track an individual responsible for hacking State run
   servers. In the past, I have turned to SIGINT organizations for
   collections on computer related material, but this was due to the US being
   behind in cyber warfare, and not knowing where to assign responsibility.
   However, this has changed dramatically in the last couple of years.

   Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As an extreme
   scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go to a Starbucks with
   free public wifi, and never attribute the online activity to something
   revealing (accessing personal email accounts, tweeting, entering personal
   information to the laptop, etc..), and begin hacking government email
   accounts then never use the laptop again. Unless LEA could get an accurate
   description of my appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible security
   cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

   Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to these
   enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied to specific
   computer-related activities because of the difficulty in identifying
   individuals.

   I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown, would be
   the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a common participant in
   \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a State? Anonymous has denounced
   state governments before, if that State agent organizes an attack amongst
   his IRC / Twitter buddies, what signs could a LEA look for to distinguish?

   On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a bit)

     1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything actually
     harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't, but i'm very
     doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first real case where they
     could do some minor damage--to individual people, not not to an
     organization or anything that would come as a serious or strategic
     threat. 

     2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is actually pretty
     good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as a cover, but that would be
     pretty easy to bungle, and could probably still be attributed if
     important enough to those agencies.  The recent attack on Sony actually
     brings this issue up- Whoever is calling themselves anonymous denies
     they did it.  And keep in mind how much they have claimed an publicized
     attacks in the past, even before they were carried out.  The attack on
     the Playstation Network was more sophisticated than anonymous' usual
     work (though potentially coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that
     distracted Sony's IT security).  But whoever did it, again, no real
     damage came of it.  Congress is holding hearings over data security, but
     this is no different than the OC groups stealing your credit card
     information.  LE will go after them, have some success, but the threat
     is not that large. 
     On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

       Link: themeData

       I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to have a
       broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no nothing, or
       almost nothing about what this group is and the threat it poses.
       Reviewing their list of attacks
       (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most of the
       cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood of the internet
       . The interesting thing when it comes to their interactions with the
       cartels is the dubious role they play: at the same time they can be
       fighting crime by revealing cartel members/supporters, but they can
       also put lives in risk.

       However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by Anonymous.
       The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can conduct a cyber
       attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
       (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

       If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government websites,
       or if I am just a internet user, I would like to know more about these
       guys. Who they are? What are they interested in? How they operate? Who
       they have targeted so far? How can I defend myself from them? In what
       countries are they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use
       them to achieve any particular goal?

       On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

         nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else can
         build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they pose to
         innocent people caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing
         on journalists or taxi drivers they show little understanding of the
         situation.  This has long term implications in not just Mexico. 
         They don't consider the consequences of their actions and they act
         without understanding the environment.  It was the same when they
         released information on the Sony Playstation network to protest
         Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

         On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

           Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
           possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
           Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by Anonymous,
           threatens revealing personal information on cartels as well as
           states a member had been kidnapped. I could not find any sources
           outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being kidnapped.
           According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous
           Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual posting flyers in
           Veracruz as part of the Operation Paperstorm protest, although
           that is speculation.

           Link: themeData
           Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
           denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed
           out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
           Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked
           individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the
           most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
           the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing
           identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists
           who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los
           Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
           consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
           was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
           their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
           potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and
           hackers, presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels
           lashing out at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting
           on cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

           What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
           threat to Mexican cartels.
                o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
           media
                o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash
           out at cartels

           While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
           threat
                o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
           identifiable information on cartel members
                o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire
           on cartels
                o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
           communications, identifiable information on cartels members have
           to be considered in the realm of possibilities for
                       Anonymous
                       o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
           illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

           Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
           ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result,
           their understanding of cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous
           may act with confidence when sitting in front of a computer, but
           this may blind them to any possible retribution. They may not even
           know the impact of any online assault of cartels.
                o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists
           will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these
           individuals are forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi
           drivers are often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
           halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals will not
           have a significant impact on cartel                   operations.
           Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
           Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any
           consequences from this.
                o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels
           are willing to go protect their operations.
                   o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                   o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
           community before, coercing computer science majors into working
           for them.
                   o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
           discovering hackers within Mexico.

            

           On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

             Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but
             there are several issues to address and fix here.

             These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
             discussion:

                  o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine
             but we can't gloss over that fact
                  o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
             between stealing bank records from government computers and
             overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                  o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
             information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
             kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
             talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
             politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
             going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
             killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
             operational details, because they acted as informants, because
             they exposed links with officials or because they somehow
             sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
             information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                  o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
             realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a
             measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity
             except for the technical ability by a very small number of its
             members to infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal
             information. Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on
             a network that is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)?
             Where else could information be found? Government databases?
             Once we know what kind of information is accessible, we can also
             know more about the consequences of dissemination.
                  o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to
             trace back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of
             killings done by people who may not understand the difference
             between an anon hacker and a blogger.

             On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

               wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

               -------- Original Message --------

                Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                   Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                   From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
               Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                     To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

               you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need
               a lot more work

               You need to lay out:

               a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger
               section is unclear
               b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
               therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
               c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
               anything
               d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill
               anyone who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

               I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
               insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant
               levels of sophistication in their online presence, to include
               the use of cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
               is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
               business online, in a protected fashion.

               Karen Hooper
               Latin America Analyst
               o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
               c: 512.750.7234
               STRATFOR
               www.stratfor.com
               On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

               On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

               Link: themeData

               Trigger

               Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
               Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?,
               lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
               denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video
               released depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a
               screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent video release,
               Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels.
               Threats such as releasing identities of Mexican? American?
               taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists who collude
               with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas
               release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences.
               The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels
               and hackers, presents an unprecedented war front for the
               cartels. The vastly different operations of Anonymous and Los
               Zetas leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have
               little experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no
               experience with the cartels. I do not believe for a second
               that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                

               In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
               mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
               their demands of releasing a kidnapped member this should be
               mentioned right up front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is
               threatening to hit back. Provide enough details so we
               understand who this guy is and why/how he was abducted. are
               not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing revealing
               information on cartel members and operations are true, cartels
               will likely respond with violence against individuals revealed
               as opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous members?.
               It also is likely that public disclosure of GOM officials who
               collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving
               the Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this
               means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
               effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against
               Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will continue
               their threats against any individual using online media WC....
               you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers
               here. against the cartels.

                

               The Battle Space

               Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
               realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere
               of the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience
               geographical boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
               exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They
               are physical people tho live in the real world. They have
               names and addresses - although most of them are likely outside
               of MX.)  Anonymous' power base consists of their technical
               capabilities in hacking. Any information connected to the
               Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying
               the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's
               population could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of
               what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
               Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in
               revenue, but it does not really matter if you don't run
               operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money via
               e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on the web than
               the jihadists.)

               Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power
               base consists of the perceived anonymity that its members
               believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating
               through the internet. This gives an opening for people
               disgruntled by anything and everything to practice general
               dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity + audience =
               troll. Only a fraction of the large web of people who identify
               themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
               capability. 

               The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has
               been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

               The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US
               and Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking
               to maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
               commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
               and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from
               insight. There is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't
               have a similar capacity.  Their power base is built by large
               amounts of revenue and escalating brutal violence. Cartels
               like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing different types of
               threats. Cartels are always suffering at the hands of cartel
               on cartel violence. While battling each other, cartels still
               face arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to
               avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
               have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
               bloggers in order to cover details of their operations. ok...
               but that's kind of a red herrng for this discussion. You need
               to focus on the possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't
               just assume they have no cyber presence.

                

               Anonymous' Weapons

               Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
               criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability
               to combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly
               disseminating sensitive information on cartels and propagating
               anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced websites
               in Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous
               admitted in their video to cartels, they cannot fight with
               guns.  The significance of a targeted information operations
               campaign by technically elite individuals can not be
               overlooked should not be underestimated. Cartels view main
               stream media outlets and social media blogs as such a threat
               to their operations, that they have continued to target
               journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los
               Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on
               the body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
               denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive
               here, and it's not really addressing the subheading

               As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet
               risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to
               suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing information they
               threaten to release. By releasing identities of individuals
               cooperating with Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life
               of those individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate
               sensitive information is limited by what is available via the
               Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
               should always be considered a possibility of an attack.
               However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the US
               governments computer networks, information available to
               Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy to acquire. 
               what are you trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

                

               Cartel's Defense

                           A counter response to the video? by the cartels
               has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a
               kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun
               addressing the threat posed by hackers so... how has there not
               been a counter response? also this undermines your statements
               above about how Anonymous is soley internet based, and
               underlines the vulnerabilities of associated members. How did
               they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that could very
               well give you some indication to the technical ability of the
               cartels . As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
               wide web , the cartels will face a number of challenges which
               rarely are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has
               whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You
               can assume (and we have good intel indicating that) they are
               working on disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening
               cartels, can operate in any region of the world. Personal
               information including locations is only available if a hacker
               chooses to divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy
               enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only work for
               Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
               online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or
               start employing hackers of their own under their payroll?
               Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                           Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
               Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the
               help of computer science majors through personal threats has
               been reported in the past where? What cartels? reported
               where?.  Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence
               and drug trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of
               technical experts to help combat any threat by computer
               hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been
               demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable of
               identifying any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
               enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
               experience and resources than cartels, struggle to find
               hackers through investigations. A) How do you know they are
               not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm
               goign to assume that not all hackers are equally difficult to
               track down

                           In order to compete with an online foe, cartels
               will likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar
               with, brute force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT
               operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they
               wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
               communities will likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel
               members.  Narco banners and public display of violence will
               likely continue to be used to scare online media into
               submission i'm not really seeing the online
               media-international hacking group connection here.  The cruel
               manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer
               hackers have unlikely encountered before in their life.
               Whether the fear of cartel violence softens the confidence of
               Anonymous will remain to be seen until cartels are able to
               seek out and capture members of the hacker group.. Or the
               Narcos could call the collective bluff and simply go on and
               shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:38:17",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/159826_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
160395,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of these
   in the US?
    What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
   I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
   whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
   because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
   revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding
   of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is expendable to
   cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of coercion.

   Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
   cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of el
   chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication as a
   tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable intelligence,
   the government will use it against the cartels. That's a physical threat,
   if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify that Anonymous can
   not directly effect physical security. Any impact to the cartel in
   revealing information will be from actions of rival cartels or the GoM.
   They may release information on a given politician being linked to the
   cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the politician will feel an impact
   (Just because Anonymous says there is a link, doesn't make it true). It
   would be up to others to take action.

   Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online activity
   (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to conduct significant
   logistics and business online. We don't know how much, but we do know they
   will have some points of operational vulnerability I have heard of cartels
   doing business online, but don't have specific examples which could be
   used in assessing their vulnerability online.

   by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired, arrested
   or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I should say,
   there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out politicians as
   colluding.
   On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

     Karen Hooper
     Latin America Analyst
     o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
     c: 512.750.7234
     STRATFOR
     www.stratfor.com
     On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
     Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing possible
     cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat Anonymous can pose
     to cartels. The video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing
     personal information on cartels as well as states a member had been
     kidnapped. I could not find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of
     the individual being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites
     (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an
     individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the Operation
     Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

     Link: themeData
     Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
     denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed out at
     drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
     criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked individual
     addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the most recent
     video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels
     in Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers, police,
     politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels do they
     specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of these in the
     US?
      What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
     group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
     face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
     mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their
     demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The potential of
     conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents a
     unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out at online
     bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing with any
     headaches from hackers before. 

     What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
          o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat to
     Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the
     head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using
     publication as a tool to force government action. If you reveal
     actionable intelligence, the government will use it against the cartels.
     That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
          o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online media
          o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out at
     cartels

     While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a threat
          o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess identifiable
     information on cartel members
          o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
     cartels
          o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
     identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in the
     realm of possibilities for
                 Anonymous
                 o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
     illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are
     known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't
     know how much, but we do know they will have some points of operational
     vulnerability

     Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the ultra-violent
     world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result, their understanding of
     cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when
     sitting in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
     retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online assault of
     cartels.
          o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists will
     cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these individuals are
     forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are often
     victims of extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the
     identity of these individuals will not have a significant impact on
     cartel                   operations. Politicans have been accused of
     working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before, however
     there has yet to be any consequences from this. by \"no consequences\"
     what exactly do you mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and
     that happens all the time.
          o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels are
     willing to go protect their operations.
             o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
             o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science community
     before, coercing computer science majors into working for them.
             o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
     discovering hackers within Mexico.
     need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply publishing
     tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the same camp as
     the bloggers

      

     On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

       Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but there
       are several issues to address and fix here.

       These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
       discussion:

            o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but we
       can't gloss over that fact
            o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference between
       stealing bank records from government computers and overloading
       www.loszetas.com main page.
            o     There's no thought out process of what sort of information
       could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is kept online and
       accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
       identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops, politicians and
       businessmen who need to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
       Think about why the bloggers and media were killed in previous
       instances. Was it because they revealed operational details, because
       they acted as informants, because they exposed links with officials or
       because they somehow sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what
       kind of information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
            o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
       realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure of
       damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for the
       technical ability by a very small number of its members to infiltrate
       certain networks and databases and steal information. Now what kind of
       information would a cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
       internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could information be found?
       Government databases? Once we know what kind of information is
       accessible, we can also know more about the consequences of
       dissemination.
            o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
       back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings done by
       people who may not understand the difference between an anon hacker
       and a blogger.

       On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

         wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

         -------- Original Message --------

          Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
             Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
             From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
         Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
               To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

         you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a lot
         more work

         You need to lay out:

         a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section is
         unclear
         b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
         therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
         c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
         d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone who
         breaches their systems or exposes their connections

         I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
         insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant levels
         of sophistication in their online presence, to include the use of
         cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no reason to
         assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
         protected fashion.

         Karen Hooper
         Latin America Analyst
         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
         c: 512.750.7234
         STRATFOR
         www.stratfor.com
         On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

         On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

         Link: themeData

         Trigger

         Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
         Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed out
         at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
         Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released depicting...?
         a person talking? a voice? words on a screen? exactly when?.  With
         the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
         the criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of
         Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
         journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker group
         demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
         consequences. The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal
         cartels and hackers, presents an unprecedented war front for the
         cartels. The vastly different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas
         leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have little
         experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no experience
         with the cartels. I do not believe for a second that the cartels
         have no experience with hackers.

          

         In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
         day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of
         releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up
         front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back.
         Provide enough details so we understand who this guy is and why/how
         he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing
         revealing information on cartel members and operations are true,
         cartels will likely respond with violence against individuals
         revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous
         members?. It also is likely that public disclosure of GOM officials
         who collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving the
         Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this means. You
         mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel
         will be able to retaliate against Anonymous remains unanswered .
         However, cartels will continue their threats against any individual
         using online media WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not
         talking about bloggers here. against the cartels.

          

         The Battle Space

         Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
         realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere of
         the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience geographical
         boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in
         cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They are physical people
         tho live in the real world. They have names and addresses - although
         most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power base
         consists of their technical capabilities in hacking. Any information
         connected to the Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers.
         (Identifying the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst of
         Mexico's population could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of
         what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
         Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in revenue,
         but it does not really matter if you don't run operations on the
         web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are also far
         less dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

         Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power base
         consists of the perceived anonymity that its members believe
         themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating through the
         internet. This gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
         and everything to practice general dickery. As the popular meme
         goes, anonymity + audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web
         of people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of
         serious IT capability. 

         The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been from
         targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

         The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
         Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
         maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
         commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money and
         issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight. There
         is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity.
         Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue and escalating
         brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing
         different types of threats. Cartels are always suffering at the
         hands of cartel on cartel violence. While battling each other,
         cartels still face arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels
         wish to avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
         have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
         bloggers in order to cover details of their operations. ok... but
         that's kind of a red herrng for this discussion. You need to focus
         on the possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume
         they have no cyber presence.

          

         Anonymous' Weapons

         Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
         criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
         combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly disseminating
         sensitive information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel
         statements via social media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean
         so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
         cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance of a
         targeted information operations campaign by technically elite
         individuals can not be overlooked should not be underestimated.
         Cartels view main stream media outlets and social media blogs as
         such a threat to their operations, that they have continued to
         target journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los
         Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the
         body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who denounce
         cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not
         really addressing the subheading

         As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet risks
         disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest Anonymous
         is capable of possessing information they threaten to release. By
         releasing identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
         cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those individuals.
         Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive information is limited
         by what is available via the Internet. Government computers
         connected to the Internet should always be considered a possibility
         of an attack. However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the
         US governments computer networks, information available to Mexico's
         intelligence collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you
         trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

          

         Cartel's Defense

                     A counter response to the video? by the cartels has yet
         to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped member by
         Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed
         by hackers so... how has there not been a counter response? also
         this undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is soley
         internet based, and underlines the vulnerabilities of associated
         members. How did they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that
         could very well give you some indication to the technical ability of
         the cartels . As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
         wide web , the cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely
         are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole
         agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume
         (and we have good intel indicating that) they are working on
         disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in
         any region of the world. Personal information including locations is
         only available if a hacker chooses to divulge it or if the subject
         of the attack is savvy enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only
         work for Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
         online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
         employing hackers of their own under their payroll? Stranger things
         have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                     Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
         Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the help of
         computer science majors through personal threats has been reported
         in the past where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels
         operate in the world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they
         will likely need the assistance of technical experts to help combat
         any threat by computer hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside
         of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable
         of identifying any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
         enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
         experience and resources than cartels, struggle to find hackers
         through investigations. A) How do you know they are not in Mexico?
         (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not
         all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                     In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
         likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with, brute
         force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT operations within
         Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals
         with alleged connections to hacker communities will likely be
         targeted and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and
         public display of violence will likely continue to be used to scare
         online media into submission i'm not really seeing the online
         media-international hacking group connection here.  The cruel
         manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer hackers
         have unlikely encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
         cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will remain to
         be seen until cartels are able to seek out and capture members of
         the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the collective bluff and
         simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 18:19:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/160395_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
160928,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already The USG arrested 10
     Russian spies last year, are you willing to say foreign intel is not
     capable of conducting espionage undetected?

     2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
     responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating cyber
     intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case HUMINT is
     just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT capabilities does not
     indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers. NSA may have there own
     department for tracking hackers but it does not make it SIGINT. The
     question is if the attack is high priority enough.  Many people assume
     there is no attribution because there is no response, but I don't think
     that is accurate.  Many people say this, because no attribution is one
     reason for no response.

     3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new laptop and
     start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack involves much more than
     a recently bought laptop.  In the same way there is an attack cycle for
     a terrorist attack or crime, there is one for a cyber attack.  A very
     simple attack may be as hard to trace as a nearly-random mugging in the
     dark in a neighborhood with much more serious crime and no CCTV
     cameras.  A more complicated attack, however, involves pre-operational
     surveillance, developing exploits, developing programs and code, gaining
     access, exploiting that, and carrying out an attack.  Discovering
     exploits and writing code can be done entirely offline, out of sight of
     law enforcement or intel agencies. Pre-operational surveillance and
     gaining access (the point of the exploit you write offline) would fit in
     my example. The point is, if you don't link your computer to
     identifiable information, you remain anonymous.  And that takes time,
     giving more time for your exposure Exposure comes from network activity
     with the target, a lot of the pre-operational phase of an attack can
     occur without network activity. Look at everything that went into
     Stuxnet as a great example, that couldn't be done with one person with a
     new laptop. Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of
     necessary labor for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are
     discussing operations on the scale of causing physical damage to
     extremely sensitive equipment .  All of this activity provides activity
     and evidence which helps for attribution.  Of course it is always
     possible to develop an attack, just like any other operation, that even
     the best law enforcement and national intelligence agencies have trouble
     or cannot attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that it's very difficult
     for someone to successfully use Anonymous as a cover and have NSA, GHQ,
     MID, Aman, etc, be unable to attribute it.  How do you know if NSA or
     GHQ is effective in identifying hackers? They may not choose to cover it
     if it is small scale crime, however. 
     On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored cyber
       warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing that, since
       you can conduct a cyber attack without associating with a hacker group
       and still deny / cover actions on behalf of the State. An individual
       attacking US computer assets from China, may be working by himself or
       on behalf of the Chinese government, but unless the US has other intel
       on the Chinese government's cyber warfare activities in order to
       corroborate there is little capability to distinguish.

       It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
       operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets from
       SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual responsible for
       hacking State run servers. In the past, I have turned to SIGINT
       organizations for collections on computer related material, but this
       was due to the US being behind in cyber warfare, and not knowing where
       to assign responsibility. However, this has changed dramatically in
       the last couple of years.

       Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As an
       extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go to a
       Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the online
       activity to something revealing (accessing personal email accounts,
       tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop, etc..), and
       begin hacking government email accounts then never use the laptop
       again. Unless LEA could get an accurate description of my appearance
       from Starbuck's patrons or possible security cameras, I can not think
       of way to identify me.

       Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to these
       enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied to specific
       computer-related activities because of the difficulty in identifying
       individuals.

       I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown, would
       be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a common
       participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a State?
       Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that State agent
       organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter buddies, what signs
       could a LEA look for to distinguish?

       On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a bit)

         1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything actually
         harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't, but i'm very
         doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first real case where
         they could do some minor damage--to individual people, not not to an
         organization or anything that would come as a serious or strategic
         threat. 

         2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is actually
         pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as a cover, but
         that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could probably still be
         attributed if important enough to those agencies.  The recent attack
         on Sony actually brings this issue up- Whoever is calling themselves
         anonymous denies they did it.  And keep in mind how much they have
         claimed an publicized attacks in the past, even before they were
         carried out.  The attack on the Playstation Network was more
         sophisticated than anonymous' usual work (though potentially
         coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that distracted Sony's IT
         security).  But whoever did it, again, no real damage came of it. 
         Congress is holding hearings over data security, but this is no
         different than the OC groups stealing your credit card information. 
         LE will go after them, have some success, but the threat is not that
         large. 
         On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

           Link: themeData

           I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to have a
           broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no nothing, or
           almost nothing about what this group is and the threat it poses.
           Reviewing their list of attacks
           (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most of
           the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood of the
           internet . The interesting thing when it comes to their
           interactions with the cartels is the dubious role they play: at
           the same time they can be fighting crime by revealing cartel
           members/supporters, but they can also put lives in risk.

           However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
           Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can
           conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
           (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

           If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
           websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to know
           more about these guys. Who they are? What are they interested in?
           How they operate? Who they have targeted so far? How can I defend
           myself from them? In what countries are they active? Should I
           worry about them at all? Can I use them to achieve any particular
           goal?

           On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

             nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else
             can build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they
             pose to innocent people caught up in the terror that is Mexico. 
             By focusing on journalists or taxi drivers they show little
             understanding of the situation.  This has long term implications
             in not just Mexico.  They don't consider the consequences of
             their actions and they act without understanding the
             environment.  It was the same when they released information on
             the Sony Playstation network to protest Sony.  They hurt
             innocent people to prove a point. 

             On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

               Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
               possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
               Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by
               Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on cartels
               as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
               find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the
               individual being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites
               (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it
               may be an individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the
               Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

               Link: themeData
               Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
               distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government
               websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
               statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a
               video depicting a masked individual addressing Mexican drug
               cartels on October 10? With the most recent video release,
               Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels in
               Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers,
               police, politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal
               cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow
               kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. In the
               Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
               day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands
               of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The potential of
               conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
               presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels
               lashing out at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any
               reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers
               before. 

               What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                    o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
               threat to Mexican cartels.
                    o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit
               online media
                    o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to
               lash out at cartels

               While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose
               a threat
                    o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
               identifiable information on cartel members
                    o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could
               acquire on cartels
                    o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
               communications, identifiable information on cartels members
               have to be considered in the realm of possibilities for
                           Anonymous
                           o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to
               reveal illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

               Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
               ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
               result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
               limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting in
               front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
               retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online
               assault of cartels.
                    o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
               journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some
               of these individuals are forced to collude with cartels.    
                         Taxi drivers are often victims of extortion or
               coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the identity of these
               individuals will not have a significant impact on cartel    
                             operations. Politicans have been accused of
               working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before,
               however there has yet to be any consequences from this.
                    o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent
               cartels are willing to go protect their operations.
                       o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                       o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
               community before, coercing computer science majors into
               working for them.
                       o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
               discovering hackers within Mexico.

                

               On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                 Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea
                 but there are several issues to address and fix here.

                 These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
                 discussion:

                      o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's
                 fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                      o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                 difference between stealing bank records from government
                 computers and overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                      o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
                 information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of
                 info is kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You
                 seem to be talking about identities, whose? If anything it's
                 dirty cops, politicians and businessmen who need to worry
                 about what anon is going to be saying. Think about why the
                 bloggers and media were killed in previous instances. Was it
                 because they revealed operational details, because they
                 acted as informants, because they exposed links with
                 officials or because they somehow sullied the cartel's
                 reputation? In short, what kind of information is damaging
                 to the cartels themselves?
                      o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon
                 can realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes
                 a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence
                 capacity except for the technical ability by a very small
                 number of its members to infiltrate certain networks and
                 databases and steal information. Now what kind of
                 information would a cartel keep on a network that is
                 connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else
                 could information be found? Government databases? Once we
                 know what kind of information is accessible, we can also
                 know more about the consequences of dissemination.
                      o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to
                 trace back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of
                 killings done by people who may not understand the
                 difference between an anon hacker and a blogger.

                 On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                   wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                   -------- Original Message --------

                    Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                       Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                       From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                   Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                         To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                   you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to
                   need a lot more work

                   You need to lay out:

                   a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger
                   section is unclear
                   b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is,
                   and therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
                   c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
                   anything
                   d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill
                   anyone who breaches their systems or exposes their
                   connections

                   I also just want to point out that we have reasonable
                   reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some
                   significant levels of sophistication in their online
                   presence, to include the use of cyber currencies and
                   significant IT capacity. There is no reason to assume that
                   Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
                   protected fashion.

                   Karen Hooper
                   Latin America Analyst
                   o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                   c: 512.750.7234
                   STRATFOR
                   www.stratfor.com
                   On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                   On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                   Link: themeData

                   Trigger

                   Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
                   Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?,
                   lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
                   statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including
                   a video released depicting...? a person talking? a voice?
                   words on a screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent
                   video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                   criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of
                   Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
                   journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker
                   group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member
                   otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
                   between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
                   unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly
                   different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a
                   conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have little
                   experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no
                   experience with the cartels. I do not believe for a second
                   that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                    

                   In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                   mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                   reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped member
                   this should be mentioned right up front. Cartels have a
                   member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back. Provide
                   enough details so we understand who this guy is and
                   why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims
                   of possessing revealing information on cartel members and
                   operations are true, cartels will likely respond with
                   violence against individuals revealed as opposing cartel
                   members huh? you mean Anonymous members?. It also is
                   likely that public disclosure of GOM officials who collude
                   with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving the
                   Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this
                   means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
                   effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against
                   Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will
                   continue their threats against any individual using online
                   media WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking
                   about bloggers here. against the cartels.

                    

                   The Battle Space

                   Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two
                   separate realities from each other. Anonymous operates
                   solely in sphere of the computer networks. Anonymous does
                   not experience geographical boundaries. All personalities
                   within Anonymous, exist solely in cyber space.  (That is
                   not entirely true. They are physical people tho live in
                   the real world. They have names and addresses - although
                   most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power
                   base consists of their technical capabilities in hacking.
                   Any information connected to the Internet is vulnerable to
                   exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's of individual
                   cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population could
                   be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
                   has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or
                   a big company with a website that brings in revenue, but
                   it does not really matter if you don't run operations on
                   the web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They
                   are also far less dependent on the web than the
                   jihadists.)

                   Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's
                   power base consists of the perceived anonymity that its
                   members believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by
                   operating through the internet. This gives an opening for
                   people disgruntled by anything and everything to practice
                   general dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity +
                   audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web of
                   people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any
                   sort of serious IT capability. 

                   The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has
                   been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

                   The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in
                   US and Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always
                   looking to maximize profits and expand. But they are
                   bricks and mortar commerce. Yes..... but they use the
                   internet to launder money and issue commands. We know that
                   Sinaloa does that from insight. There is no reason to
                   assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity. 
                   Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue and
                   escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
                   experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels
                   are always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel
                   violence. While battling each other, cartels still face
                   arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to
                   avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money,
                   cartels have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists
                   and online bloggers in order to cover details of their
                   operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for this
                   discussion. You need to focus on the possible
                   vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
                   have no cyber presence.

                    

                   Anonymous' Weapons

                   Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions
                   against criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous'
                   only ability to combat cartels lay in information
                   operations, mainly disseminating sensitive information on
                   cartels and propagating anti-cartel statements via social
                   media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean so far and
                   that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
                   cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance of
                   a targeted information operations campaign by technically
                   elite individuals can not be overlooked should not be
                   underestimated. Cartels view main stream media outlets and
                   social media blogs as such a threat to their operations,
                   that they have continued to target journalists and
                   bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was
                   placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the
                   body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
                   denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive
                   here, and it's not really addressing the subheading

                   As stated earlier, any information connected to the
                   internet risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample
                   reason to suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing
                   information they threaten to release. By releasing
                   identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
                   cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
                   individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
                   information is limited by what is available via the
                   Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
                   should always be considered a possibility of an attack.
                   However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the US
                   governments computer networks, information available to
                   Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy to
                   acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This isn't
                   clear at all

                    

                   Cartel's Defense

                               A counter response to the video? by the
                   cartels has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous'
                   claims of a kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los
                   Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by hackers
                   so... how has there not been a counter response? also this
                   undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is
                   soley internet based, and underlines the vulnerabilities
                   of associated members. How did they find teh Anonymous
                   member? The answer to that could very well give you some
                   indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
                   Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web
                   , the cartels will face a number of challenges which
                   rarely are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG
                   has whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in
                   cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good intel
                   indicating that) they are working on disrupting the
                   cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in any
                   region of the world. Personal information including
                   locations is only available if a hacker chooses to divulge
                   it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
                   figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous.
                   Cartels are only capable of dealing with their online
                   enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
                   employing hackers of their own under their payroll?
                   Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                               Cartels have been known to coerce the services
                   of Mexican citizens with a technical background.
                   Recruiting the help of computer science majors through
                   personal threats has been reported in the past where? What
                   cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels operate in the
                   world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they will
                   likely need the assistance of technical experts to help
                   combat any threat by computer hackers.  While identifying
                   bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is
                   unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
                   operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies
                   such as the FBi, with far more technical experience and
                   resources than cartels, struggle to find hackers through
                   investigations. A) How do you know they are not in Mexico?
                   (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume
                   that not all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                               In order to compete with an online foe,
                   cartels will likely continue counter tactics they are most
                   familiar with, brute force. Cartels are still capable of
                   their HUMINT operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would
                   we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged
                   connections to hacker communities will likely be targeted
                   and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and
                   public display of violence will likely continue to be used
                   to scare online media into submission i'm not really
                   seeing the online media-international hacking group
                   connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
                   inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
                   encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
                   cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will
                   remain to be seen until cartels are able to seek out and
                   capture members of the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could
                   call the collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off
                   any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

         --

         Sean Noonan

         Tactical Analyst

         Office: +1 512-279-9479

         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

         www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-25 00:07:40",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/160928_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
161628,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else can build
   off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they pose to innocent
   people caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing on journalists
   or taxi drivers they show little understanding of the situation.  This has
   long term implications in not just Mexico.  They don't consider the
   consequences of their actions and they act without understanding the
   environment.  It was the same when they released information on the Sony
   Playstation network to protest Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a
   point. 

   On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing possible
     cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat Anonymous can pose
     to cartels. The video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing
     personal information on cartels as well as states a member had been
     kidnapped. I could not find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of
     the individual being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites
     (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an
     individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the Operation
     Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

     Link: themeData
     Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
     denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed out at
     drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
     criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked individual
     addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the most recent
     video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels
     in Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers, police,
     politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The
     hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member
     otherwise face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming
     November 5th was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
     reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met.
     The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
     presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out at
     online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing
     with any headaches from hackers before. 

     What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
          o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat to
     Mexican cartels.
          o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online media
          o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out at
     cartels

     While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a threat
          o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess identifiable
     information on cartel members
          o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
     cartels
          o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
     identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in the
     realm of possibilities for
                 Anonymous
                 o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
     illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

     Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the ultra-violent
     world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result, their understanding of
     cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when
     sitting in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
     retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online assault of
     cartels.
          o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists will
     cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these individuals are
     forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are often
     victims of extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the
     identity of these individuals will not have a significant impact on
     cartel                   operations. Politicans have been accused of
     working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before, however
     there has yet to be any consequences from this.
          o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels are
     willing to go protect their operations.
             o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
             o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science community
     before, coercing computer science majors into working for them.
             o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
     discovering hackers within Mexico.

      

     On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

       Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but there
       are several issues to address and fix here.

       These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
       discussion:

            o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but we
       can't gloss over that fact
            o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference between
       stealing bank records from government computers and overloading
       www.loszetas.com main page.
            o     There's no thought out process of what sort of information
       could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is kept online and
       accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
       identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops, politicians and
       businessmen who need to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
       Think about why the bloggers and media were killed in previous
       instances. Was it because they revealed operational details, because
       they acted as informants, because they exposed links with officials or
       because they somehow sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what
       kind of information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
            o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
       realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure of
       damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for the
       technical ability by a very small number of its members to infiltrate
       certain networks and databases and steal information. Now what kind of
       information would a cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
       internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could information be found?
       Government databases? Once we know what kind of information is
       accessible, we can also know more about the consequences of
       dissemination.
            o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
       back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings done by
       people who may not understand the difference between an anon hacker
       and a blogger.

       On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

         wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

         -------- Original Message --------

          Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
             Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
             From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
         Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
               To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

         you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a lot
         more work

         You need to lay out:

         a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section is
         unclear
         b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
         therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
         c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
         d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone who
         breaches their systems or exposes their connections

         I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
         insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant levels
         of sophistication in their online presence, to include the use of
         cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no reason to
         assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
         protected fashion.

         Karen Hooper
         Latin America Analyst
         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
         c: 512.750.7234
         STRATFOR
         www.stratfor.com
         On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

         On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

         Link: themeData

         Trigger

         Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
         Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed out
         at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
         Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released depicting...?
         a person talking? a voice? words on a screen? exactly when?.  With
         the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
         the criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of
         Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
         journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker group
         demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
         consequences. The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal
         cartels and hackers, presents an unprecedented war front for the
         cartels. The vastly different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas
         leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have little
         experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no experience
         with the cartels. I do not believe for a second that the cartels
         have no experience with hackers.

          

         In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
         day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of
         releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up
         front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back.
         Provide enough details so we understand who this guy is and why/how
         he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing
         revealing information on cartel members and operations are true,
         cartels will likely respond with violence against individuals
         revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous
         members?. It also is likely that public disclosure of GOM officials
         who collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving the
         Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this means. You
         mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel
         will be able to retaliate against Anonymous remains unanswered .
         However, cartels will continue their threats against any individual
         using online media WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not
         talking about bloggers here. against the cartels.

          

         The Battle Space

         Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
         realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere of
         the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience geographical
         boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in
         cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They are physical people
         tho live in the real world. They have names and addresses - although
         most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power base
         consists of their technical capabilities in hacking. Any information
         connected to the Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers.
         (Identifying the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst of
         Mexico's population could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of
         what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
         Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in revenue,
         but it does not really matter if you don't run operations on the
         web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are also far
         less dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

         Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power base
         consists of the perceived anonymity that its members believe
         themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating through the
         internet. This gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
         and everything to practice general dickery. As the popular meme
         goes, anonymity + audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web
         of people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of
         serious IT capability. 

         The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been from
         targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

         The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
         Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
         maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
         commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money and
         issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight. There
         is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity.
         Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue and escalating
         brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing
         different types of threats. Cartels are always suffering at the
         hands of cartel on cartel violence. While battling each other,
         cartels still face arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels
         wish to avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
         have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
         bloggers in order to cover details of their operations. ok... but
         that's kind of a red herrng for this discussion. You need to focus
         on the possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume
         they have no cyber presence.

          

         Anonymous' Weapons

         Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
         criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
         combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly disseminating
         sensitive information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel
         statements via social media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean
         so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
         cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance of a
         targeted information operations campaign by technically elite
         individuals can not be overlooked should not be underestimated.
         Cartels view main stream media outlets and social media blogs as
         such a threat to their operations, that they have continued to
         target journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los
         Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the
         body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who denounce
         cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not
         really addressing the subheading

         As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet risks
         disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest Anonymous
         is capable of possessing information they threaten to release. By
         releasing identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
         cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those individuals.
         Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive information is limited
         by what is available via the Internet. Government computers
         connected to the Internet should always be considered a possibility
         of an attack. However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the
         US governments computer networks, information available to Mexico's
         intelligence collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you
         trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

          

         Cartel's Defense

                     A counter response to the video? by the cartels has yet
         to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped member by
         Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed
         by hackers so... how has there not been a counter response? also
         this undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is soley
         internet based, and underlines the vulnerabilities of associated
         members. How did they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that
         could very well give you some indication to the technical ability of
         the cartels . As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
         wide web , the cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely
         are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole
         agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume
         (and we have good intel indicating that) they are working on
         disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in
         any region of the world. Personal information including locations is
         only available if a hacker chooses to divulge it or if the subject
         of the attack is savvy enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only
         work for Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
         online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
         employing hackers of their own under their payroll? Stranger things
         have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                     Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
         Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the help of
         computer science majors through personal threats has been reported
         in the past where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels
         operate in the world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they
         will likely need the assistance of technical experts to help combat
         any threat by computer hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside
         of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable
         of identifying any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
         enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
         experience and resources than cartels, struggle to find hackers
         through investigations. A) How do you know they are not in Mexico?
         (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not
         all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                     In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
         likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with, brute
         force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT operations within
         Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals
         with alleged connections to hacker communities will likely be
         targeted and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and
         public display of violence will likely continue to be used to scare
         online media into submission i'm not really seeing the online
         media-international hacking group connection here.  The cruel
         manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer hackers
         have unlikely encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
         cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will remain to
         be seen until cartels are able to seek out and capture members of
         the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the collective bluff and
         simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 17:22:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/161628_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
166004,"Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta conflict
	in context
","   Cool piece, comments and questions within

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Nate Hughes\" <nate.hughes@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 3:38:44 PM
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict        in context

   On 11/1/11 1:11 PM, scott stewart wrote:

      Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta Conflict in Context

     On Oct. 31, the online activist collective Anonymous posted a message to
     the internet  in which it stated that it was continuing with its
     campaign against the Mexican criminal cartels and their
     governmentsupporters despite the inherent danger.

      

     The messageurged inexperienced activists who might not be practicing
     proper online security measures to abstain from participating. It also
     urged individuals associated with Anonymous to not conduct physical
     pamphlet drops, participate in protests, wear or purchase Guy Fawkes
     masks, or use Guy Fawkes imagery in their internet or physical world
     activities.  Guy Fawkes was British Catholic conspirator who was
     involved in a plot to bomb the British Parliament in 1605, and who has
     become somewhat of an Anarchist icon in the United Kingdom. The British
     celebrate Guy Fawkes Day each year on Nov. 5, and the day has special
     meaning for the anarchists.  

      

     It is not coincidental then, that in their Oct. 6 video, Anonymous set
     Nov. 5 as the deadline for Los Zetas to release the Anonymous associate
     who was allegedly kidnapped in Veracruz by Los Zetas. The Anonymous
     associate was reportedly abducted during an Anonymous leaflet campaign
     called Operation Paperstorm Also you might want to add the date he was
     picked up.

      

     The Oct. 31message acknowledged that the operation against Los Zetas,
     dubbed a**# OpCartela** no space. also, make it clear that this is a
     hashmark associated with twitter tagging (not looking to harp on it, but
     we need to show that we're aware of what that is with at least a
     parenthetical) is dangerous and noted that the collective would be
     assembling a hand-picked group of known and trusted associates to
     participate in a special task force to execute the operation. It asked
     supporters to use a software widget they had developed in order to
     anonymously pass information pertaining to drug trafficking to the task
     force, which will then distribute it. 

      

     With Nov. 5, approaching, and at least some elements of Anonymous not
     backing down on their threats to Los Zetas, we thought it would be
     useful to provide some context to the present conflict between Anonymous
     and Los Zetas and to also address some of its potential implications.

      

     Context

      

     First it issignificant to understand that the epicenter of this event is
     Veracruz, which  has been a very busy place over the past few months in
     terms of Mexicoa**s cartel wars. The port city also serves as a critical
     transportation hub for the narcotics smuggling activities of the Los
     Zetas cartel. Because of this, Stratfor has identified Veracruz as [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111024-mexican-drug-war-update-polarization-continues
     ] a bellweather city thatwill help determine the trajectory of the Los
     Zetas cartel in the coming months. 

      

     One of the big recent developments in Veracruz was the Sinaloa
     cartela**s push into the Zeta stronghold using the [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-mexico-security-memo-zetas-defensive-veracruz
     ] Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG), which using the name
     Matazetas (Zeta killers) conducted some high-profile body dumps of over
     50 alleged low-level Zeta operatives on Sept. 20 and 22.  On Oct. 25,
     Mexican Marines arrested Carlos Arturo Pitalua-Carillo, a**El Bam
     Bam,a** who was Los Zetas plaza boss in Veracruz.  This means that in
     Veracruz at the present time, Los Zetas are feeling pressure from both
     the Government of Mexico and the CJNG.

      

     Into this dynamic flow, we had the Anonymous internet collective begin
     to take action in Veracruz in August. In response to what Anonymous saw
     as the state of Veracruz supporting the Los Zetas cartel could really
     use a bit more about what led an online collective of activists into the
     mexican cartel war and why now? How does this fit with their modus
     operandi and why veracruz now and not any other place at any other time
     in the last year or two? we get at some of this below, but would get to
     the what brought anonymous into this right up front...

     , they launched Operation Paperstorm, in which activists associated with
     this is the leaderless resistance model, and we want to be clear early
     on that many of these 'associates' may be self-styled and self-appointed
     'members' of the group, not unlike ELF or ALF... the Anonymous
     collective distributed leaflets throughout Veracruz claiming the state
     government supports Los Zetas.  They conducted major leaflet
     distributions on Aug. 13, 20, and 29. They also released videos to the
     internet on the anonymous website? or on the website of the veracruz
     government? or on youtube? on Aug. 26 and 29, condemning the State of
     Veracruz. (According to the Oct. 6 Anonymous video, Los Zetas allegedly
     kidnapped one of the activists involved in Operation Paperstorm.)

      

     Activities outside of Veracruz have also played a part in setting the
     stage. On Sept. 13, two people were tortured and killed and their bodies
     hung from a pedestrianoverpass in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas state.  Signs
     left with the bodies signified that Los Zetas had killed the pair
     because they had posted information pertaining to Los Zetas on blogs
     that specialize in reporting on the Mexican cartels. On Sept 26, the
     body of Marisol Macias Casteneda was found beheaded in a park in Nuevo
     Laredo.   Macias who worked for a local newspaper allegedly posted on
     cartel blogs using the nickname a**Laredo Girl.a** A message found with
     her body noted that she was killed by Los Zetas due to her online
     activities.

      

     Following the death of Laredo Girl, Anonymous claimed responsibility for
     a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack conducted against the
     official website of the state of Veracruz. Although she was killed by
     Los Zetas in Nuevo Laredo Tamaulipas, Anonymous said their attack on the
     Veracruz state website was because of the death of Laredo Girl. are we
     implying that this is an indication of the level of sophistication of
     anonymous activists' understanding of mexico and the cartels? I agree
     that a sentence should be added here about what it means that Anonymous
     chose to avenge Laredo Girl's death.

      

     It is also important to recognize that Anonymous was also unhappy with
     the State of Veracruz over the decision of the state to prosecute two
     individuals who had posted false kidnapping reports on Twitter on Aug.
     25. The false reports alleged that a group of children had been abducted
     from a Veracruz school and the panic caused by the report allegedly
     resulted in some two dozen traffic accidents as terrified parents rushed
     to the school to check o n their children. The so-called a**twitter
     terroristsa** were initially charged with offenses that could have
     carried a 30-year sentence. Anonymous, which has absolute freedom of
     speech on the internet as one of its foundational principles, took
     umbrage with this stiff penalty for the Twitter case a** especially
     because it stood in stark contrast with the impunity many cartel figures
     enjoy in Mexico. 

      

      

     Following the Oct. 6 release of the video in which Anonymous threatened
     Los Zetas if they did not release the kidnapped anonymous activist,
     Stratfor began to focus on the story, and in light of the approaching
     Nov. 5 deadline, decided to publish an, [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111028-mexicos-cartels-draw-online-activists-ire
     ] analysis of the topic, which was released on Oct. 28.  

      

     Following the release of our analysis, the topic has received a great
     deal of media coverage. This publicity has generated a very interesting
     response from Anonymous -- one that emphasizes the fast that it is a
     collective of people and not an organization.  As some
     Anonymousactivists were backing off the issue, erasing online user
     accounts, suggesting that the operation against Los Zetas had been a
     hoax and claiming that no activist had been kidnapped, other activists
     suggested that the campaign should be suspended. Still other activists
     became more strident and determined in their posts, urging that the
     campaign continue. Since Anonymous is a collective, activists can pick
     and choose which actions they will participate in. that means in his
     case that those activists who want to refrain from the campaign will and
     those who want to participate will continue it.

      

     This will to continue was manifested on Oct. 29, the personal website of
     Gustavo RosarioTorres, the former attorney general of the Mexican state
     of Tobasco was hacked and defaced with a message from Anonymous Mexico
     stating that Rosario was aZeta Do we know if that claim is true? If so,
     lets note it because it shows that Anonymous does have the ability to
     dig up factual \"dirt\" about the Veracruz govt. officials .  It was also
     reflected in the tone of the Oct. 31 message. Some activists associated
     with Anonymous clearly feel compelled to continue with the campaign due
     to the outpouring of public support they received in the wake of the
     media coverage. According to the Oct 31. Video statement:

      

     a**we received many expressions of support and solidarity as well as the
     voices of people crying for help. We must remember that we are on the
     side of the people, and we cannot let down the people, especially in
     critical moments like the one they currently live in.a**

      

     We therefore anticipate that some Anonymous activists will continue the
     campaign. We also believe that Los Zetas will respond.

      

     Revenge of the Sith (Yes Kamran, I agree with Isa that Star Wars is
     better than Star Trek disagree...star wars all the way) 

      

     The variouscartel groups in Mexico have long used the internet as a
     place to trumpet their triumphs on the battlefield and to taunt and even
     degrade their enemies. The cartels have posted videos of them torturing,
     executing and beheading members of opposing cartels. They also
     frequently monitor narco blogs and sometimeseven post on them.  As
     demonstrated by the blogger killings in Nuevo Laredo in September, Los
     Zetas appear to possess at least some rudimentary capability to trace
     online activity to people in thephysical world. It is not known if they
     employ their own team of dedicated cyber experts or if they rely on
     sources within the Mexican government a** although the most likely
     answer is probably a little of both. 

      

      

     In past Anonymous actions, like the Dec. 2010 attack against Pay Pal
     following the Wikileaks case, governments in the U.S. and the UK have
     arrested numerous individuals associated with Anonymous who allegedly
     participated in the attack. In June 2011, Turkey arrested dozens of
     activists associated with Anonymousactions conducted against the Turkish
     government for its efforts to establish a national internet filtering
     system.

      

     Los Zetas, like the other Mexican cartels, do not take affronts lightly.
     Even if Anonymous is not able to provide information that will damage
     Los Zetas smuggling operations, the very fact that this group has
     decided to challenge Los Zetas publicly will result in some sort of
     response. The big question is: do theypossess the capability to
     effectively trace the organizers of the Anonymousaction against them?

      

     One problem with an entity such as Anonymous is that it is intentionally
     amorphous a** it is also as transnational as the internet, and it would
     not be surprising if many of those chosen to participate in the
     operation against Los Zetas are located outside of Mexico in locations
     such as the U.S. and Europe which are outside the immediate reach of Los
     Zetas.

      

     But the amorphous nature of Anonymous can also cut the other way.  If
     Los Zetas pick up and execute some random patrons from an internet cafe,
     behead them and place Guy Fawkesmasks on their heads, it will be very
     difficult to prove that they were not  associated with  Anonymous.  As
     Anonymous noted in their Oct. 31 video, this is dangerous business.

      

      

     The Big Picture

      

     One thing to watch as the Anonymous operation continues is the way in
     which the Mexican public reacts. Many people in the Mexican middle and
     upper classes have been deeply affected by the criminal cartels and
     theviolence the practice. We talk to many people in Mexico who are
     fearful of being kidnapped. In many communities, especially places like
     Juarez, Torreon, Monterrey and Veracruz, businessmen are being caught in
     a terrible bind. On one hand, they are receiving ever-increasing
     extortion demands from the cartels, while at the same time their
     business revenues are dwindling because people are afraid to go out due
     to the violence associated with those same cartels. This is forcing many
     businessmen out of business. It is also creating a great deal of
     frustration and resentment.

      

     At the same time, Mexico has become one of the most dangerous countries
     in the world for journalists, and many media companies practice heavy
     self-censorship to protect themselves. In the wake of the September
     blogger killings some of the narco blogs, like Blog del Narco, have also
     exhibited strong signs of fear inspired self-censorship.   This means
     that the legitimate press is not able to be of any real aid to the
     Mexican people. watch normative...

      

     Mexican citizens are also frustrated with their government, which is
     well-known for corruption.  This is the sentiment feeding Anonymousa**
     original campaign in Veracruz.  This frustration has lead some people to
     begin to talk about

     vigilante groups to fight the cartels a** though that has been attempted
     before in Mexico and as we saw in the case of [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090714_mexico_la_familia_michoacana_expands_its_attacks
     ] La Familia MichoacA!n, which originally began as such a vigilante
     group, vigilantism frequently does not end well.

      

     This is where Anonymous may fit in. With Mexican citizens unable to rely
     on their government, the media or even armed vigilante groups for
     assistance, they may embrace Anonymous and come to view its form of
     cyber vigilantism as an outlet for their frustration -- and a safe way
     to pass oninformation pertaining to cartel activities.  If this occurs,
     we may see people not just in Veracruz and other Zeta controlled areas
     providing information to Anonymous, but citizens from all over the
     country.The only thing is that I don't see what Anonymous can really do
     to los Zetas.  I mean they would have the dirt on officials in the
     government who may be Zetas, but what will the Mexican government do
     about it? I don't see the US govt. being able to do anything about that
     either.  For example, what happened to the guy Gustavo Torres in
     response to the claim by Anonymous.

      

     Also, in the same way that cartels leak information togovernments in an
     effort to use them as weapons against their rivals, we could also very
     well see groups such as the Sinaloa cartel provide information on Los
     Zetas to Anonymous. This of course would provide even more reason for
     Los Zetas to strike out against the activist collective.

      
     one interesting angle is that anonymous depends on anonymity -- and
     particularly novice self-styled, self-appointed members are not
     necessarily in a position to adequately guard their own autonomy

     Also, has autonomous struck out at entities as violent and capable as
     the cartels before? or is this a new move (meaning that even the
     experienced people have no practical experience in making judgments
     about dangers to individuals and the life-and-death consequences of
     dealing with the cartels...)

     If the Anonymous information campaign does indeed take off, and if
     Anonymous is attacked by Los Zetas, the activists could resort to
     releasing sensitive information what kind of sensitive information? to
     the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in an attempt to damage Los
     Zetas. This would be an incredible irony in light of the way Anonymous
     has viewed itself as an opponent of the U.S. government in cases like
     Wikileaks.  do we have any indication that they would do this rather
     than just making it public? What to be careful if this is how we are
     going to conclude...
","2011-11-01 22:32:58",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/166004_re-s-weekly-for-comment-placing-the-anonymous-vs-zeta.html","ashley.harrison@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
166209,"Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta conflict in
	context
","   Yes, that I why I mentioned the bit about Los Z picking up random people
   from an internet cafA(c) and behead them.  
   From: Ben West <ben.west@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 17:46:55 -0500 (CDT)
   To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict in context
   Just to build on my last comment - and I think this should be included in
   the piece - the cartels could just as easily try to intimidate would be
   sources ratting to anonymous as intimidate bloggers. Imagine if, after
   anonymous publishes a few juicy tidbits, Zetas hang a few headless bodies
   from a bridge accusing them of contributing to anonymous? True or not,
   cartels can intimidate both sides of the information flow and the sources
   may be more vulnerable than anonymous themselves.

   Still think a discussion of Anonymous and source handling would be pretty
   cool.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Ben West\" <ben.west@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 5:42:42 PM
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict        in context

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 4:45:43 PM
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict        in context

   On 11/1/11 1:11 PM, scott stewart wrote:

      Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta Conflict in Context

     On Oct. 31, the online activist collective Anonymous posted a message to
     the internet  in which it stated that it was continuing with its
     campaign against the Mexican criminal cartels and their
     governmentsupporters despite the inherent danger.

      

     The messageurged inexperienced activists who might not be practicing
     proper online security measures to abstain from participating. It also
     urged individuals associated with Anonymous to not conduct physical
     pamphlet drops, participate in protests, wear or purchase Guy Fawkes
     masks, or use Guy Fawkes imagery in their internet or physical world
     activities.[Is this universally or just in Mexico?  The former points to
     problems with LE cracking down on them, the latter specifically to
     cartel retribution]  Guy Fawkes was British Catholic conspirator who was
     involved in a plot to bomb the British Parliament in 1605, and who has
     become somewhat of an Anarchist icon in the United Kingdom. The British
     celebrate Guy Fawkes Day each year on Nov. 5, and the day has special
     meaning for the anarchists.  

      

     It is not coincidental then, that in their Oct. 6 video, Anonymous set
     Nov. 5 as the deadline for Los Zetas to release the Anonymous associate
     who was allegedly kidnapped in Veracruz by Los Zetas. The Anonymous
     associate was reportedly abducted during an Anonymous leaflet campaign
     called Operation Paperstorm.

      

     The Oct. 31message acknowledged that the operation against Los Zetas,
     dubbed \"# OpCartel\" is dangerous and noted that the collective would be
     assembling a hand-picked group of known and trusted associates to
     participate in a special task force to execute the operation.[hahahaha,
     this says something about leadership] It asked supporters to use a
     software widget[WC. is this the correct term?] they had developed in
     order to anonymously pass information pertaining to drug trafficking to
     the task force, which will then distribute it. 

      

     With Nov. 5, approaching, and at least some elements of Anonymous not
     backing down on their threats to Los Zetas, we thought it would be
     useful to provide some context to the present conflict between Anonymous
     and Los Zetas and to also address some of its potential implications.

      

     Context

      

     First it issignificant to understand that the physical? geographic?
     epicenter of this event is Veracruz, which  has been a very busy place
     over the past few months in terms of Mexico's cartel wars. The port city
     also serves as a critical transportation hub for the narcotics smuggling
     activities of the Los Zetas cartel. Because of this, Stratfor has
     identified Veracruz as [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111024-mexican-drug-war-update-polarization-continues
     ] a bellweather city thatwill help determine the trajectory of the Los
     Zetas cartel in the coming months. 

      

     One of the big recent developments in Veracruz was the Sinaloa cartel's
     push into the Zeta stronghold using the [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-mexico-security-memo-zetas-defensive-veracruz
     ] Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG), which using the name
     Matazetas (Zeta killers) conducted some high-profile body dumps of over
     50 alleged low-level Zeta operatives on Sept. 20 and 22.  On Oct. 25,
     Mexican Marines arrested Carlos Arturo Pitalua-Carillo, \"El Bam Bam,\"
     who was Los Zetas plaza boss in Veracruz.  This means that in Veracruz
     at the present time, Los Zetas are feeling pressure from both the
     Government of Mexico and the CJNG.

      

     Into this dynamic flow, we had the Anonymous internet collective begin
     to take action in Veracruz in August. In response to what Anonymous saw
     as the state of Veracruz supporting the Los Zetas cartel, they launched
     Operation Paperstorm, in which activists who associated themselves with
     the Anonymous collective distributed leaflets throughout Veracruz
     claiming the state government supports Los Zetas.  They conducted major
     leaflet distributions on Aug. 13, 20, and 29. They also released videos
     to the internet on Aug. 26 and 29, condemning the State of Veracruz.
     (According to the Oct. 6 Anonymous video, Los Zetas allegedly kidnapped
     one of the activists involved in Operation Paperstorm.)

      

     Activities outside of Veracruz have also played a part in setting the
     stage. On Sept. 13, two people were tortured and killed and their bodies
     hung from a pedestrianoverpass in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas state.  Signs
     left with the bodies signified that Los Zetas had killed the pair
     because they had posted information pertaining to Los Zetas on blogs
     that specialize in reporting on the Mexican cartels. On Sept 26, the
     body of Marisol Macias Casteneda was found beheaded in a park in Nuevo
     Laredo.   Macias who worked for a local newspaper allegedly posted on
     cartel blogs using the nickname \"Laredo Girl.\" A message found with her
     body noted that she was killed by Los Zetas due to her online
     activities.

      

     Following the death of Laredo Girl, Anonymous claimed responsibility for
     a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack conducted against the
     official website of the state of Veracruz. Although she was killed by
     Los Zetas in Nuevo Laredo Tamaulipas, Anonymous said their attack on the
     Veracruz state website was because of the death of Laredo Girl. [can you
     attempt to explain why they linked it with veracruz?]

      

     It is also important to recognize that some members of Anonymous [again
     I hate referring to Anonymous as one entity] was also unhappy with the
     State of Veracruz over the decision of the state to prosecute two
     individuals who had posted false kidnapping reports on Twitter on Aug.
     25. The false reports alleged that a group of children had been abducted
     from a Veracruz school and the panic caused by the report allegedly
     resulted in some two dozen traffic accidents as terrified parents rushed
     to the school to check o n their children. The so-called \"twitter
     terrorists\" were initially charged with offenses that could have carried
     a 30-year sentence. Those involved in this campaign from Anonymous,
     which claims absolute freedom of speech on the internet as one of its
     foundational principles, took umbrage with this stiff penalty for the
     Twitter case - especially because it stood in stark contrast with the
     impunity many cartel figures enjoy in Mexico. 

      

      

     Following the Oct. 6 release of the video in which Anonymous threatened
     Los Zetas if they did not release the kidnapped anonymous activist,
     Stratfor began to focus on the story, and in light of the approaching
     Nov. 5 deadline, decided to publish an, [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111028-mexicos-cartels-draw-online-activists-ire
     ] analysis of the topic, which was released on Oct. 28.  

      

     Following the release of our analysis, the topic has received a great
     deal of media coverage. This publicity has generated a very interesting
     response from Anonymous -- one that emphasizes the fast that it is a
     collective of people and not an organization.  As some
     Anonymousactivists were backing off the issue, erasing online user
     accounts[does this mean accounts of people in support of the attack?],
     suggesting that the operation against Los Zetas had been a hoax and
     claiming that no activist had been kidnapped, other activists suggested
     that the campaign should be suspended. Still other activists became more
     strident and determined in their posts, urging that the campaign
     continue. Since Anonymous is a collective, activists can pick and choose
     which actions they will participate in. that means in his case that
     those activists who want to refrain from the campaign will and those who
     want to participate will continue it.  [i see how this paragraph fits
     into your analysis the way you have it written, but I think it might go
     better at the front.  You could use the 'anonymous discussion' as a
     trigger, explain it's \"collective\" qualities and then go into the rest
     of the analysis.  This way I feel much less bad about how we refer to
     'anonymous']

      

     This will to continue was manifested[something is off in the previous
     part of the sentence] on Oct. 29, the personal website of Gustavo
     RosarioTorres, the former attorney general of the Mexican state of
     Tobasco was hacked and defaced with a message from Anonymous Mexico
     stating that Rosario was aZeta.  It was also reflected in the tone of
     the Oct. 31 message. Some activists associated with Anonymous clearly
     feel compelled to continue with the campaign due to the outpouring[WC. 
     Did they really get an outpouring? seemed like they got a lot of
     criticism and also support for going against the cartels] of public
     support they received in the wake of the media coverage. According to
     the Oct 31. Video statement: (did we see specific examples of \"public
     support\" or are we just going off of the youtube statement CLAIMING that
     they got lots of support?)

      

     \"we received many expressions of support and solidarity as well as the
     voices of people crying for help. We must remember that we are on the
     side of the people, and we cannot let down the people, especially in
     critical moments like the one they currently live in.\"

      

     We therefore anticipate that some Anonymous activists will continue the
     campaign. We also believe that Los Zetas will respond.

      

     Revenge of the Sith (Yes Kamran, I agree with Isa that Star Wars is
     better than Star Trek. What's Star Trek?) 

      

     The variouscartel groups in Mexico have long used the internet as a
     place to trumpet their triumphs on the battlefield and to taunt and even
     degrade their enemies. The cartels have posted videos of them torturing,
     executing and beheading members of opposing cartels. They also
     frequently monitor narco blogs and sometimeseven post on them.  As
     demonstrated by the blogger killings in Nuevo Laredo in September, Los
     Zetas appear to possess at least some rudimentary capability to trace
     online activity to people in thephysical world. It is not known if they
     employ their own team of dedicated cyber experts or if they rely on
     sources within the Mexican government - although the most likely answer
     is probably a little of both.  [what about just old-fashioned human
     intelligence?  Many people discuss blogger identities both online and
     offline, something they could've picked up without network-based
     forensics.  'My brother blogs about...' and on from there.  Or by
     tracing the information the blogger had in the real world, and
     eventually getting back to the blogger]

   Tristan was talking about how the cartels were even kidnapping computer
   science students and forcing them to track anonymous down. Need to check
   with him on specifics though

      

      

     In past Anonymous actions, like the Dec. 2010 attack against Pay Pal
     following the Wikileaks case, governments in the U.S. and the UK have
     arrested numerous individuals associated with Anonymous who allegedly
     participated in the attack. In June 2011, Turkey arrested dozens of
     activists associated with Anonymousactions conducted against the Turkish
     government for its efforts to establish a national internet filtering
     system. [Need something to make a point here, maybe something like:] 
     The reality is that there is no such thing as anonymity, on the internet
     or otherwise.  Any action leaves some trail, whether digitial or
     physical.  In the same way that hackers from Anonymous develop exploits
     to access confidential information, law enforcement agencies and even
     cartels could get around encryption, examine patterns of activity and
     investigate leads that in the end identify a real person behind a
     computer. 

      

     Los Zetas, like the other Mexican cartels, do not take affronts lightly.
     Even if Anonymous is not able to provide information that will damage
     Los Zetas smuggling operations, the very fact that this group has
     decided to challenge Los Zetas publicly will result in some sort of
     response. The big question is: do theypossess the capability to
     effectively trace the organizers of the Anonymousaction against them?

      

     One problem with an entity such as Anonymous is that it is intentionally
     amorphous - it is also as transnational as the internet, and it would
     not be surprising if many of those chosen to participate in the
     operation against Los Zetas are located outside of Mexico in locations
     such as the U.S. and Europe which are outside the immediate reach of Los
     Zetas.(the US is not out of reach, at least not on the border:
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111005-mexico-security-memo-defining-cross-border-violence)

      

     But the amorphous nature of Anonymous can also cut the other way.  If
     Los Zetas pick up and execute some random patrons from an internet cafe,
     behead them and place Guy Fawkesmasks on their heads, it will be very
     difficult to prove that they were not  associated with  Anonymous.  As
     Anonymous noted in their Oct. 31 video, this is dangerous business.(it
     would certainly be within the cartel's capacity to kill innocents and
     blame anonymous in the attempt to intimidate them into stopping their
     activity)

      

      

     The Big Picture

      

     One thing to watch as the Anonymous operation continues is the way in
     which the Mexican public reacts. Many people in the Mexican middle and
     upper classes have been deeply affected by the criminal cartels and
     theviolence the practice. We talk to many people in Mexico who are
     fearful of being kidnapped. In many communities, especially places like
     Juarez, Torreon, Monterrey and Veracruz, businessmen are being caught in
     a terrible bind. On one hand, they are receiving ever-increasing
     extortion demands from the cartels, while at the same time their
     business revenues are dwindling because people are afraid to go out due
     to the violence associated with those same cartels. This is forcing many
     businessmen[enterprises?] out of business. It is also creating a great
     deal of frustration and resentment.

      

     At the same time, Mexico has become one of the most dangerous countries
     in the world for journalists, and many media organizations practice
     heavy self-censorship to protect themselves. In the wake of the
     September blogger killings some of the narco blogs, like Blog del Narco,
     have also exhibited strong signs of fear inspired self-censorship.  
     This means that the legitimate press is not able to be of any real aid
     to the Mexican people.

      

     Mexican citizens are also frustrated with their government, which is
     well-known for corruption.  This is the sentiment feeding Anonymous'
     original campaign in Veracruz.  This frustration has lead some people to
     begin to talk about

     vigilante groups to fight the cartels - though that has been attempted
     before in Mexico and as we saw in the case of [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090714_mexico_la_familia_michoacana_expands_its_attacks
     ] La Familia MichoacA!n, which originally began as such a vigilante
     group, vigilantism frequently does not end well.

      

     This is where Anonymous may fit in. With Mexican citizens unable to rely
     on their government, the media or even armed vigilante groups for
     assistance, they may embrace Anonymous and come to view its form of
     cyber vigilantism as an outlet for their frustration -- and a perceived
     safe way to pass oninformation pertaining to cartel activities.  If this
     occurs, we may see people not just in Veracruz and other Zeta controlled
     areas providing information to Anonymous, but citizens from all over the
     country.

      

     Also, in the same way that cartels leak information togovernments in an
     effort to use them as weapons against their rivals, we could also very
     well see groups such as the Sinaloa cartel provide information on Los
     Zetas to Anonymous. This of course would provide even more reason for
     Los Zetas to strike out against the activist collective.

      

     If the Anonymous information campaign does indeed take off, and if
     Anonymous is attacked by Los Zetas, the activists could resort to
     releasing sensitive information to the U.S. Drug Enforcement
     Administration in an attempt to damage Los Zetas. This would be an
     incredible irony in light of the way Anonymous has viewed itself as an
     opponent of the U.S. government in cases like Wikileaks. (Anonymous has
     made it clear that the value they provide is a safe and private medium
     through which to pass this damning information. Their stated priority is
     to publicize information that people send to them. But, do they have a
     way to protect their sources? They likely don't have much collective
     experience in source handling. I imagine a lot of the details they get
     could put their sources in serious trouble. If I were a semi-smart
     Mexican who knew some super detailed information on the cartels, I would
     think long and hard before handing it over to these guys. This may be a
     separate piece entirely, but I think we need a discussion on source
     handling and how good hackers don't necessarily make good intelligence
     agents.)

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   STRATFOR

   T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967

   www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-02 01:50:05",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/166209_re-s-weekly-for-comment-placing-the-anonymous-vs-zeta.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
166280,"[CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing possible
   cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat Anonymous can pose
   to cartels. The video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing personal
   information on cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I
   could not find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual
   being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and
   Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual posting flyers
   in Veracruz as part of the Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is
   speculation.

   Link: themeData
   Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
   denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed out at
   drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
   criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked individual
   addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the most recent video
   release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels in
   Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers, police,
   politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker
   group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
   consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
   mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their
   demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The potential of
   conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents a unique
   threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out at online bloggers,
   but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches
   from hackers before. 

   What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
        o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat to
   Mexican cartels.
        o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online media
        o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out at
   cartels

   While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a threat
        o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess identifiable
   information on cartel members
        o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
   cartels
        o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
   identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in the
   realm of possibilities for
               Anonymous
               o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit
   online activity (child pornography rings)

   Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the ultra-violent world
   of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result, their understanding of cartel
   activities may be limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting
   in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
   retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online assault of
   cartels.
        o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists will cost
   lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these individuals are forced
   to collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are often victims of
   extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the identity of these
   individuals will not have a significant impact on cartel                  
   operations. Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero
   & Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any consequences
   from this.
        o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels are
   willing to go protect their operations.
           o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
           o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science community
   before, coercing computer science majors into working for them.
           o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of discovering
   hackers within Mexico.

    

   On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but there are
     several issues to address and fix here.

     These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the discussion:

          o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but we
     can't gloss over that fact
          o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference between
     stealing bank records from government computers and overloading
     www.loszetas.com main page.
          o     There's no thought out process of what sort of information
     could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is kept online and
     accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
     identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops, politicians and
     businessmen who need to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
     Think about why the bloggers and media were killed in previous
     instances. Was it because they revealed operational details, because
     they acted as informants, because they exposed links with officials or
     because they somehow sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what
     kind of information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
          o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
     realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure of
     damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for the
     technical ability by a very small number of its members to infiltrate
     certain networks and databases and steal information. Now what kind of
     information would a cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
     internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could information be found?
     Government databases? Once we know what kind of information is
     accessible, we can also know more about the consequences of
     dissemination.
          o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace back
     attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings done by people
     who may not understand the difference between an anon hacker and a
     blogger.

     On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

       wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

       -------- Original Message --------

        Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
           Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
           From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
       Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
             To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

       you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a lot
       more work

       You need to lay out:

       a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section is
       unclear
       b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and therefore
       their vulnerabilities and capabilities
       c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
       d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone who
       breaches their systems or exposes their connections

       I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable insight
       that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant levels of
       sophistication in their online presence, to include the use of cyber
       currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no reason to assume
       that Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a protected
       fashion.

       Karen Hooper
       Latin America Analyst
       o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
       c: 512.750.7234
       STRATFOR
       www.stratfor.com
       On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

       On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       Link: themeData

       Trigger

       Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers. Anonymous,
       a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed out at drug
       cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
       criminal cartels, including a video released depicting...? a person
       talking? a voice? words on a screen? exactly when?.  With the most
       recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
       criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of Mexican?
       American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists who
       collude with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas
       release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. The
       potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
       presents an unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly
       different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
       Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
       believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do not
       believe for a second that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

        

       In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
       day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of
       releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up front.
       Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back. Provide
       enough details so we understand who this guy is and why/how he was
       abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing revealing
       information on cartel members and operations are true, cartels will
       likely respond with violence against individuals revealed as opposing
       cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous members?. It also is likely
       that public disclosure of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will
       force the GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i
       don't understand what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten
       Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
       against Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will continue
       their threats against any individual using online media WC.... you
       mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers here. against
       the cartels.

        

       The Battle Space

       Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate realities
       from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere of the computer
       networks. Anonymous does not experience geographical boundaries. All
       personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in cyber space.  (That is
       not entirely true. They are physical people tho live in the real
       world. They have names and addresses - although most of them are
       likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power base consists of their
       technical capabilities in hacking. Any information connected to the
       Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's
       of individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population could
       be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous has done are
       DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big company with a
       website that brings in revenue, but it does not really matter if you
       don't run operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money via
       e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on the web than the
       jihadists.)

       Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power base
       consists of the perceived anonymity that its members believe
       themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating through the
       internet. This gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything and
       everything to practice general dickery. As the popular meme goes,
       anonymity + audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web of
       people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious
       IT capability. 

       The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been from
       targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

       The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
       Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to maximize
       profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar commerce. Yes.....
       but they use the internet to launder money and issue commands. We know
       that Sinaloa does that from insight. There is no reason to assume that
       Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity.  Their power base is built by
       large amounts of revenue and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like
       Los Zetas, are experienced in facing different types of threats.
       Cartels are always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel
       violence. While battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law
       Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in the
       flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted media outlets.
       Murdering journalists and online bloggers in order to cover details of
       their operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for this
       discussion. You need to focus on the possible vulnerabilities of the
       cartels. Don't just assume they have no cyber presence.

        

       Anonymous' Weapons

       Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
       criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to combat
       cartels lay in information operations, mainly disseminating sensitive
       information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel statements via
       social media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean so far and that
       we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to cartels, they
       cannot fight with guns.  The significance of a targeted information
       operations campaign by technically elite individuals can not be
       overlooked should not be underestimated. Cartels view main stream
       media outlets and social media blogs as such a threat to their
       operations, that they have continued to target journalists and
       bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was placed with a
       dead female body  more relevantly, on the body of a blogger. The
       message threatened any users who denounce cartels on blogging
       websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not really addressing the
       subheading

       As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet risks
       disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest Anonymous is
       capable of possessing information they threaten to release. By
       releasing identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican cartels,
       Anonymous threatens the life of those individuals. Anonymous's ability
       to disseminate sensitive information is limited by what is available
       via the Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
       should always be considered a possibility of an attack. However, as
       with the compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer
       networks, information available to Mexico's intelligence collection
       may not be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This
       isn't clear at all

        

       Cartel's Defense

                   A counter response to the video? by the cartels has yet to
       see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped member by Los
       Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by
       hackers so... how has there not been a counter response? also this
       undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is soley internet
       based, and underlines the vulnerabilities of associated members. How
       did they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well
       give you some indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
       Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the
       cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed for
       them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies dedicated to
       fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good intel
       indicating that) they are working on disrupting the cartels.. Hackers
       threatening cartels, can operate in any region of the world. Personal
       information including locations is only available if a hacker chooses
       to divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
       figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous. Cartels are only
       capable of dealing with their online enemy, if they can physically
       reach out to them. Or start employing hackers of their own under their
       payroll? Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                   Cartels have been known to coerce the services of Mexican
       citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the help of computer
       science majors through personal threats has been reported in the past
       where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels operate in the
       world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they will likely need
       the assistance of technical experts to help combat any threat by
       computer hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has
       been demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying
       any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies
       such as the FBi, with far more technical experience and resources than
       cartels, struggle to find hackers through investigations. A) How do
       you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they kidnapped???)
       B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are equally difficult to
       track down

                   In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
       likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with, brute
       force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT operations within
       Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals
       with alleged connections to hacker communities will likely be targeted
       and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and public display
       of violence will likely continue to be used to scare online media into
       submission i'm not really seeing the online media-international
       hacking group connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
       inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely encountered
       before in their life. Whether the fear of cartel violence softens the
       confidence of Anonymous will remain to be seen until cartels are able
       to seek out and capture members of the hacker group.. Or the Narcos
       could call the collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off any
       inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 16:32:57",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/166280_-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
166779,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Good point. 
   In terrorist terms they are more like grassroots people than AQ core. 
   From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:11:05 -0500
   To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
   Somehow we have to stop referring to 'anonymous' as a monolith.  They are
   a bunch of different people that essentially get together in an
   online-form of a mob to carry out some action. I'm not sure how to do this
   in writing consistently.  But let's start with shit like 'people joining
   Anonymous chatrooms and claiming to be part of the movement' or something
   like that. 

   Comments in green below.  This is coming together nicely. 

   On 10/24/11 11:19 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of
     these in the US?
      What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
     I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
     whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
     because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
     revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of
     understanding of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is
     expendable to cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of
     coercion.

     Anonymous does not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
     cartels.  mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of el
     chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication as a
     tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable intelligence,
     the government will use it against the cartels. That's a physical
     threat, if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify that
     Anonymous can not directly effect physical security. Any impact to the
     cartel in revealing information will be from actions of rival cartels or
     the GoM. They may release information on a given politician being linked
     to the cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the politician will feel
     an impact (Just because Anonymous says there is a link, doesn't make it
     true). It would be up to others to take action.  I think the way you
     have it worded in the above sentence is good.  Follow with a sentence
     explaining the rest of it, because readers will have the same question
     Karen did.  Something like 'Rather, the threat to cartels would come in
     what information anonymous could expose that is useful to their enemies'

     Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online
     activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to conduct
     significant logistics and business online. We don't know how much, but
     we do know they will have some points of operational vulnerability I
     have heard of cartels doing business online, but don't have specific
     examples which could be used in assessing their vulnerability online.

     by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired,
     arrested or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I
     should say, there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out
     politicians as colluding.
     On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

       Karen Hooper
       Latin America Analyst
       o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
       c: 512.750.7234
       STRATFOR
       www.stratfor.com
       On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
       Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
       possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
       Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by people using the
       banner of Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on
       cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
       find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being
       kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and
       Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual posting
       flyers ['critical of cartels'?] in Veracruz as part of the Operation
       Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation. [this is good and
       will be enough information to go with, though you'll need a quick
       explanation of what 'operation paperstorm' is.  Adding something in
       the explaining the flyers will work]

       Link: themeData
       Anonymous, a decentralized hacker collective  famous for distributed
       denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government and corporate websites,
       lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
       denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video depicting a
       masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With
       the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
       the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities
       of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists who collude with
       criminal cartels do they specify whether or not these are all in
       Mexico? Are some of these in the US?
        What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
       group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
       face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
       was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
       their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
       potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
       presents a unique threat towards TCOs [If TCO= transnational criminal
       organization, it's not really unique.  Many such organizations do
       their crimes online, and have been hacked in response--like the
       nigerian princess scams. I think you should just say it's a unique
       threat to DTOs] . We know of cartels lashing out at online bloggers,
       but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches
       from hackers before. 

       What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
            o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat
       to Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to
       the head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using
       publication as a tool to force government action. If you reveal
       actionable intelligence, the government will use it against the
       cartels. That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
            o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
       media
            o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out
       at cartels

       While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
       threat, if it had access to certain types of information:

               -The threat is in the information they can expose that may be
   of use to any cartel enemies.  That could be to the government or other
   cartels or even local citizens (the last one may be a stretch, but i could
   imagine someone discrediting cartel members in the eyes of the public).

            o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims tocut possess
       identifiable information on cartel members 
            o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
       cartels [cut this part here, and make the point at the end of this
       section/paragraph]
            o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
       identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in
       the realm of possibilities for
                   Anonymous
                   o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
       illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are
       known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't
       know how much, but we do know they will have some points of
       operational vulnerability

      -They claim to have information on those that collude with cartels 
   (use the stuff you have above].  Releasing such information could hurt
   cartels' support networks, but most of these people are also easily
   replaceable. 
               -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents have
   access to, and doubt they have such information that provides any sort of
   existential threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 

       Most Anonymous hackers are likely far removed from the ultra-violent
       world of drug trafficking in Mexico, but it's quite possible that some
       of its members in this campaign are in Mexico and opposed to the
       violence [or something like that.  my limited understanding is there
       are still activist crusader-types in Mexico, yeah?  it seems very
       possible those with a bit of time or computer skills could have joined
       up with anonymous] . As a result, their understanding of cartel
       activities may be limited. Anonymous members in other countries may
       act with confidence when sitting in front of a computer, but this may
       blind them to any possible retribution. They may not even know the
       impact of any online assault of cartels.  [the part below and above is
       written rather normatively.  We need to take that out.  just state the
       facts]
            o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists will
       cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these individuals are
       forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are often
       victims of extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the
       identity of these individuals will not have a significant impact on
       cartel                   operations. Politicans have been accused of
       working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before, however
       there has yet to be any consequences from this. by \"no consequences\"
       what exactly do you mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and
       that happens all the time.
            o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels are
       willing to go protect their operations.
               o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
               o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
       community before, coercing computer science majors into working for
       them.
               o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
       discovering hackers within Mexico.
       need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply publishing
       tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the same camp as
       the bloggers  [yes, i think it needs to be clear that their damage
       will be similar to what bloggers or wikileaks can do--limited.  But
       maybe more a danger to themselves, since they are no longer
       challenging governments, but criminal organizations]

        

       On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

         Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but there
         are several issues to address and fix here.

         These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
         discussion:

              o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but
         we can't gloss over that fact
              o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
         between stealing bank records from government computers and
         overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
              o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
         information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
         kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
         talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
         politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
         going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
         killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
         operational details, because they acted as informants, because they
         exposed links with officials or because they somehow sullied the
         cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of information is damaging
         to the cartels themselves?
              o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
         realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure of
         damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for the
         technical ability by a very small number of its members to
         infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal information. Now
         what kind of information would a cartel keep on a network that is
         connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
         information be found? Government databases? Once we know what kind
         of information is accessible, we can also know more about the
         consequences of dissemination.
              o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
         back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings done
         by people who may not understand the difference between an anon
         hacker and a blogger.

         On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

           wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

           -------- Original Message --------

            Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
               Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
               From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
           Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                 To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

           you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a
           lot more work

           You need to lay out:

           a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section
           is unclear
           b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
           therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
           c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
           d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone
           who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

           I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
           insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant levels
           of sophistication in their online presence, to include the use of
           cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no reason
           to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
           protected fashion.

           Karen Hooper
           Latin America Analyst
           o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
           c: 512.750.7234
           STRATFOR
           www.stratfor.com
           On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

           On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

           Link: themeData

           Trigger

           Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
           Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed
           out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
           Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released
           depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a screen?
           exactly when?.  With the most recent video release, Anonymous
           makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels. Threats such as
           releasing identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
           politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels.
           The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped
           member otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
           between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
           unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly different
           operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
           Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
           believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
           not believe for a second that the cartels have no experience with
           hackers.

            

           In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as
           a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of
           releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up
           front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit
           back. Provide enough details so we understand who this guy is and
           why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of
           possessing revealing information on cartel members and operations
           are true, cartels will likely respond with violence against
           individuals revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you mean
           Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public disclosure of
           GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take
           action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand
           what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
           effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against Anonymous
           remains unanswered . However, cartels will continue their threats
           against any individual using online media WC.... you mean tools?
           or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers here. against the
           cartels.

            

           The Battle Space

           Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
           realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere of
           the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience geographical
           boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in
           cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They are physical people
           tho live in the real world. They have names and addresses -
           although most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power
           base consists of their technical capabilities in hacking. Any
           information connected to the Internet is vulnerable to exploits by
           hackers. (Identifying the pc's of individual cartel members in the
           midst of Mexico's population could be quite difficult.  Remember
           that most of what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if
           you are Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in
           revenue, but it does not really matter if you don't run operations
           on the web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are
           also far less dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

           Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power base
           consists of the perceived anonymity that its members believe
           themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating through the
           internet. This gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
           and everything to practice general dickery. As the popular meme
           goes, anonymity + audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large
           web of people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort
           of serious IT capability. 

           The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been
           from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

           The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
           Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
           maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
           commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money and
           issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight. There
           is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar
           capacity.  Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue
           and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
           experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels are
           always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence. While
           battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law Enforcement
           Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in the flow of
           drugs and money, cartels have targeted media outlets. Murdering
           journalists and online bloggers in order to cover details of their
           operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for this
           discussion. You need to focus on the possible vulnerabilities of
           the cartels. Don't just assume they have no cyber presence.

            

           Anonymous' Weapons

           Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
           criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
           combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly disseminating
           sensitive information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel
           statements via social media and defaced websites in Mexico you
           mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their
           video to cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance
           of a targeted information operations campaign by technically elite
           individuals can not be overlooked should not be underestimated.
           Cartels view main stream media outlets and social media blogs as
           such a threat to their operations, that they have continued to
           target journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by
           Los Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on
           the body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
           denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive here,
           and it's not really addressing the subheading

           As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet risks
           disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest
           Anonymous is capable of possessing information they threaten to
           release. By releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
           Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
           individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
           information is limited by what is available via the Internet.
           Government computers connected to the Internet should always be
           considered a possibility of an attack. However, as with the
           compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer networks,
           information available to Mexico's intelligence collection may not
           be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This isn't
           clear at all

            

           Cartel's Defense

                       A counter response to the video? by the cartels has
           yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped
           member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the
           threat posed by hackers so... how has there not been a counter
           response? also this undermines your statements above about how
           Anonymous is soley internet based, and underlines the
           vulnerabilities of associated members. How did they find teh
           Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well give you some
           indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As Anonymous
           exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the cartels
           will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed for them
           Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies dedicated to
           fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good
           intel indicating that) they are working on disrupting the
           cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in any region
           of the world. Personal information including locations is only
           available if a hacker chooses to divulge it or if the subject of
           the attack is savvy enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only
           work for Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
           online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
           employing hackers of their own under their payroll? Stranger
           things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                       Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
           Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the help
           of computer science majors through personal threats has been
           reported in the past where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since
           cartels operate in the world of urban violence and drug
           trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of technical
           experts to help combat any threat by computer hackers.  While
           identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is
           unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers operating
           outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies such as the FBi,
           with far more technical experience and resources than cartels,
           struggle to find hackers through investigations. A) How do you
           know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they kidnapped???)
           B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are equally difficult
           to track down

                       In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
           likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with, brute
           force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT operations within
           Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?. 
           Individuals with alleged connections to hacker communities will
           likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco
           banners and public display of violence will likely continue to be
           used to scare online media into submission i'm not really seeing
           the online media-international hacking group connection here.  The
           cruel manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer
           hackers have unlikely encountered before in their life. Whether
           the fear of cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous
           will remain to be seen until cartels are able to seek out and
           capture members of the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the
           collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience
           that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:33:26",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/166779_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
167090,"Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta conflict
	in context
","     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 4:45:43 PM
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict        in context

   On 11/1/11 1:11 PM, scott stewart wrote:

      Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta Conflict in Context

     On Oct. 31, the online activist collective Anonymous posted a message to
     the internet  in which it stated that it was continuing with its
     campaign against the Mexican criminal cartels and their
     governmentsupporters despite the inherent danger.

      

     The messageurged inexperienced activists who might not be practicing
     proper online security measures to abstain from participating. It also
     urged individuals associated with Anonymous to not conduct physical
     pamphlet drops, participate in protests, wear or purchase Guy Fawkes
     masks, or use Guy Fawkes imagery in their internet or physical world
     activities.[Is this universally or just in Mexico?  The former points to
     problems with LE cracking down on them, the latter specifically to
     cartel retribution]  Guy Fawkes was British Catholic conspirator who was
     involved in a plot to bomb the British Parliament in 1605, and who has
     become somewhat of an Anarchist icon in the United Kingdom. The British
     celebrate Guy Fawkes Day each year on Nov. 5, and the day has special
     meaning for the anarchists.  

      

     It is not coincidental then, that in their Oct. 6 video, Anonymous set
     Nov. 5 as the deadline for Los Zetas to release the Anonymous associate
     who was allegedly kidnapped in Veracruz by Los Zetas. The Anonymous
     associate was reportedly abducted during an Anonymous leaflet campaign
     called Operation Paperstorm.

      

     The Oct. 31message acknowledged that the operation against Los Zetas,
     dubbed a**# OpCartela** is dangerous and noted that the collective would
     be assembling a hand-picked group of known and trusted associates to
     participate in a special task force to execute the operation.[hahahaha,
     this says something about leadership] It asked supporters to use a
     software widget[WC. is this the correct term?] they had developed in
     order to anonymously pass information pertaining to drug trafficking to
     the task force, which will then distribute it. 

      

     With Nov. 5, approaching, and at least some elements of Anonymous not
     backing down on their threats to Los Zetas, we thought it would be
     useful to provide some context to the present conflict between Anonymous
     and Los Zetas and to also address some of its potential implications.

      

     Context

      

     First it issignificant to understand that the physical? geographic?
     epicenter of this event is Veracruz, which  has been a very busy place
     over the past few months in terms of Mexicoa**s cartel wars. The port
     city also serves as a critical transportation hub for the narcotics
     smuggling activities of the Los Zetas cartel. Because of this, Stratfor
     has identified Veracruz as [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111024-mexican-drug-war-update-polarization-continues
     ] a bellweather city thatwill help determine the trajectory of the Los
     Zetas cartel in the coming months. 

      

     One of the big recent developments in Veracruz was the Sinaloa
     cartela**s push into the Zeta stronghold using the [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-mexico-security-memo-zetas-defensive-veracruz
     ] Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG), which using the name
     Matazetas (Zeta killers) conducted some high-profile body dumps of over
     50 alleged low-level Zeta operatives on Sept. 20 and 22.  On Oct. 25,
     Mexican Marines arrested Carlos Arturo Pitalua-Carillo, a**El Bam
     Bam,a** who was Los Zetas plaza boss in Veracruz.  This means that in
     Veracruz at the present time, Los Zetas are feeling pressure from both
     the Government of Mexico and the CJNG.

      

     Into this dynamic flow, we had the Anonymous internet collective begin
     to take action in Veracruz in August. In response to what Anonymous saw
     as the state of Veracruz supporting the Los Zetas cartel, they launched
     Operation Paperstorm, in which activists who associated themselves with
     the Anonymous collective distributed leaflets throughout Veracruz
     claiming the state government supports Los Zetas.  They conducted major
     leaflet distributions on Aug. 13, 20, and 29. They also released videos
     to the internet on Aug. 26 and 29, condemning the State of Veracruz.
     (According to the Oct. 6 Anonymous video, Los Zetas allegedly kidnapped
     one of the activists involved in Operation Paperstorm.)

      

     Activities outside of Veracruz have also played a part in setting the
     stage. On Sept. 13, two people were tortured and killed and their bodies
     hung from a pedestrianoverpass in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas state.  Signs
     left with the bodies signified that Los Zetas had killed the pair
     because they had posted information pertaining to Los Zetas on blogs
     that specialize in reporting on the Mexican cartels. On Sept 26, the
     body of Marisol Macias Casteneda was found beheaded in a park in Nuevo
     Laredo.   Macias who worked for a local newspaper allegedly posted on
     cartel blogs using the nickname a**Laredo Girl.a** A message found with
     her body noted that she was killed by Los Zetas due to her online
     activities.

      

     Following the death of Laredo Girl, Anonymous claimed responsibility for
     a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack conducted against the
     official website of the state of Veracruz. Although she was killed by
     Los Zetas in Nuevo Laredo Tamaulipas, Anonymous said their attack on the
     Veracruz state website was because of the death of Laredo Girl. [can you
     attempt to explain why they linked it with veracruz?]

      

     It is also important to recognize that some members of Anonymous [again
     I hate referring to Anonymous as one entity] was also unhappy with the
     State of Veracruz over the decision of the state to prosecute two
     individuals who had posted false kidnapping reports on Twitter on Aug.
     25. The false reports alleged that a group of children had been abducted
     from a Veracruz school and the panic caused by the report allegedly
     resulted in some two dozen traffic accidents as terrified parents rushed
     to the school to check o n their children. The so-called a**twitter
     terroristsa** were initially charged with offenses that could have
     carried a 30-year sentence. Those involved in this campaign from
     Anonymous, which claims absolute freedom of speech on the internet as
     one of its foundational principles, took umbrage with this stiff penalty
     for the Twitter case a** especially because it stood in stark contrast
     with the impunity many cartel figures enjoy in Mexico. 

      

      

     Following the Oct. 6 release of the video in which Anonymous threatened
     Los Zetas if they did not release the kidnapped anonymous activist,
     Stratfor began to focus on the story, and in light of the approaching
     Nov. 5 deadline, decided to publish an, [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111028-mexicos-cartels-draw-online-activists-ire
     ] analysis of the topic, which was released on Oct. 28.  

      

     Following the release of our analysis, the topic has received a great
     deal of media coverage. This publicity has generated a very interesting
     response from Anonymous -- one that emphasizes the fast that it is a
     collective of people and not an organization.  As some
     Anonymousactivists were backing off the issue, erasing online user
     accounts[does this mean accounts of people in support of the attack?],
     suggesting that the operation against Los Zetas had been a hoax and
     claiming that no activist had been kidnapped, other activists suggested
     that the campaign should be suspended. Still other activists became more
     strident and determined in their posts, urging that the campaign
     continue. Since Anonymous is a collective, activists can pick and choose
     which actions they will participate in. that means in his case that
     those activists who want to refrain from the campaign will and those who
     want to participate will continue it.  [i see how this paragraph fits
     into your analysis the way you have it written, but I think it might go
     better at the front.  You could use the 'anonymous discussion' as a
     trigger, explain it's \"collective\" qualities and then go into the rest
     of the analysis.  This way I feel much less bad about how we refer to
     'anonymous']

      

     This will to continue was manifested[something is off in the previous
     part of the sentence] on Oct. 29, the personal website of Gustavo
     RosarioTorres, the former attorney general of the Mexican state of
     Tobasco was hacked and defaced with a message from Anonymous Mexico
     stating that Rosario was aZeta.  It was also reflected in the tone of
     the Oct. 31 message. Some activists associated with Anonymous clearly
     feel compelled to continue with the campaign due to the outpouring[WC. 
     Did they really get an outpouring? seemed like they got a lot of
     criticism and also support for going against the cartels] of public
     support they received in the wake of the media coverage. According to
     the Oct 31. Video statement: (did we see specific examples of \"public
     support\" or are we just going off of the youtube statement CLAIMING that
     they got lots of support?)

      

     a**we received many expressions of support and solidarity as well as the
     voices of people crying for help. We must remember that we are on the
     side of the people, and we cannot let down the people, especially in
     critical moments like the one they currently live in.a**

      

     We therefore anticipate that some Anonymous activists will continue the
     campaign. We also believe that Los Zetas will respond.

      

     Revenge of the Sith (Yes Kamran, I agree with Isa that Star Wars is
     better than Star Trek. What's Star Trek?) 

      

     The variouscartel groups in Mexico have long used the internet as a
     place to trumpet their triumphs on the battlefield and to taunt and even
     degrade their enemies. The cartels have posted videos of them torturing,
     executing and beheading members of opposing cartels. They also
     frequently monitor narco blogs and sometimeseven post on them.  As
     demonstrated by the blogger killings in Nuevo Laredo in September, Los
     Zetas appear to possess at least some rudimentary capability to trace
     online activity to people in thephysical world. It is not known if they
     employ their own team of dedicated cyber experts or if they rely on
     sources within the Mexican government a** although the most likely
     answer is probably a little of both.  [what about just old-fashioned
     human intelligence?  Many people discuss blogger identities both online
     and offline, something they could've picked up without network-based
     forensics.  'My brother blogs about...' and on from there.  Or by
     tracing the information the blogger had in the real world, and
     eventually getting back to the blogger]

   Tristan was talking about how the cartels were even kidnapping computer
   science students and forcing them to track anonymous down. Need to check
   with him on specifics though

      

      

     In past Anonymous actions, like the Dec. 2010 attack against Pay Pal
     following the Wikileaks case, governments in the U.S. and the UK have
     arrested numerous individuals associated with Anonymous who allegedly
     participated in the attack. In June 2011, Turkey arrested dozens of
     activists associated with Anonymousactions conducted against the Turkish
     government for its efforts to establish a national internet filtering
     system. [Need something to make a point here, maybe something like:] 
     The reality is that there is no such thing as anonymity, on the internet
     or otherwise.  Any action leaves some trail, whether digitial or
     physical.  In the same way that hackers from Anonymous develop exploits
     to access confidential information, law enforcement agencies and even
     cartels could get around encryption, examine patterns of activity and
     investigate leads that in the end identify a real person behind a
     computer. 

      

     Los Zetas, like the other Mexican cartels, do not take affronts lightly.
     Even if Anonymous is not able to provide information that will damage
     Los Zetas smuggling operations, the very fact that this group has
     decided to challenge Los Zetas publicly will result in some sort of
     response. The big question is: do theypossess the capability to
     effectively trace the organizers of the Anonymousaction against them?

      

     One problem with an entity such as Anonymous is that it is intentionally
     amorphous a** it is also as transnational as the internet, and it would
     not be surprising if many of those chosen to participate in the
     operation against Los Zetas are located outside of Mexico in locations
     such as the U.S. and Europe which are outside the immediate reach of Los
     Zetas.(the US is not out of reach, at least not on the border:
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111005-mexico-security-memo-defining-cross-border-violence)

      

     But the amorphous nature of Anonymous can also cut the other way.  If
     Los Zetas pick up and execute some random patrons from an internet cafe,
     behead them and place Guy Fawkesmasks on their heads, it will be very
     difficult to prove that they were not  associated with  Anonymous.  As
     Anonymous noted in their Oct. 31 video, this is dangerous business.(it
     would certainly be within the cartel's capacity to kill innocents and
     blame anonymous in the attempt to intimidate them into stopping their
     activity)

      

      

     The Big Picture

      

     One thing to watch as the Anonymous operation continues is the way in
     which the Mexican public reacts. Many people in the Mexican middle and
     upper classes have been deeply affected by the criminal cartels and
     theviolence the practice. We talk to many people in Mexico who are
     fearful of being kidnapped. In many communities, especially places like
     Juarez, Torreon, Monterrey and Veracruz, businessmen are being caught in
     a terrible bind. On one hand, they are receiving ever-increasing
     extortion demands from the cartels, while at the same time their
     business revenues are dwindling because people are afraid to go out due
     to the violence associated with those same cartels. This is forcing many
     businessmen[enterprises?] out of business. It is also creating a great
     deal of frustration and resentment.

      

     At the same time, Mexico has become one of the most dangerous countries
     in the world for journalists, and many media organizations practice
     heavy self-censorship to protect themselves. In the wake of the
     September blogger killings some of the narco blogs, like Blog del Narco,
     have also exhibited strong signs of fear inspired self-censorship.  
     This means that the legitimate press is not able to be of any real aid
     to the Mexican people.

      

     Mexican citizens are also frustrated with their government, which is
     well-known for corruption.  This is the sentiment feeding Anonymousa**
     original campaign in Veracruz.  This frustration has lead some people to
     begin to talk about

     vigilante groups to fight the cartels a** though that has been attempted
     before in Mexico and as we saw in the case of [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090714_mexico_la_familia_michoacana_expands_its_attacks
     ] La Familia MichoacA!n, which originally began as such a vigilante
     group, vigilantism frequently does not end well.

      

     This is where Anonymous may fit in. With Mexican citizens unable to rely
     on their government, the media or even armed vigilante groups for
     assistance, they may embrace Anonymous and come to view its form of
     cyber vigilantism as an outlet for their frustration -- and a perceived
     safe way to pass oninformation pertaining to cartel activities.  If this
     occurs, we may see people not just in Veracruz and other Zeta controlled
     areas providing information to Anonymous, but citizens from all over the
     country.

      

     Also, in the same way that cartels leak information togovernments in an
     effort to use them as weapons against their rivals, we could also very
     well see groups such as the Sinaloa cartel provide information on Los
     Zetas to Anonymous. This of course would provide even more reason for
     Los Zetas to strike out against the activist collective.

      

     If the Anonymous information campaign does indeed take off, and if
     Anonymous is attacked by Los Zetas, the activists could resort to
     releasing sensitive information to the U.S. Drug Enforcement
     Administration in an attempt to damage Los Zetas. This would be an
     incredible irony in light of the way Anonymous has viewed itself as an
     opponent of the U.S. government in cases like Wikileaks. (Anonymous has
     made it clear that the value they provide is a safe and private medium
     through which to pass this damning information. Their stated priority is
     to publicize information that people send to them. But, do they have a
     way to protect their sources? They likely don't have much collective
     experience in source handling. I imagine a lot of the details they get
     could put their sources in serious trouble. If I were a semi-smart
     Mexican who knew some super detailed information on the cartels, I would
     think long and hard before handing it over to these guys. This may be a
     separate piece entirely, but I think we need a discussion on source
     handling and how good hackers don't necessarily make good intelligence
     agents.)

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   STRATFOR

   T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967

   www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-01 23:42:42",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/167090_re-s-weekly-for-comment-placing-the-anonymous-vs-zeta.html","ben.west@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
167291,"[alpha] INSIGHT - CT/CYBER - cyber and internet governance issues -
	EU105
","   LG: CT/Nate, let me know if you have questions I can pass along to my
   source. Also, I can set up a call between a few of us. He mainly deals in
   governance over cyber issues, but has been deep on the security stuff in
   past

   CODE: EU105
   PUBLICATION: yes&#8232;
   ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in Washington
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  UCAAN Chief (also advises EU and Bulgaria on IT)
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B&#8232;
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2&#8232;
   DISSEMINATION: Alpha
   HANDLER: Lauren

 Lauren, hi.
 Hope you are doing great!
 How's life?
 See attached our October issue, and below an interesting interview. If
 there's some momentum at Stratfor for those issues, would be happy to
 talk to you and/or interested parties.

 best,


 \"The United States still dominate the Internet situation\", says former
 Russian Intelligence Service general (and yes, he speaks in English,
 as one can hear from the audio of the interview, published on the url
 below). No need to click on the link, as the \"Voice of Russia\" are
 probably monitoring traffic, and where it comes from, so here's the
 whole interview:

 http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/10/30/59533092.html

 Interview with Gennady Yevstafyev, retired Lieutenant-General of
 Russian Intelligence Service.

 This week Cyber Czar of the United States Mr. Cross, he is coming to
 discuss the problems, he is coming not at the very official style,
 because in Russia there are words that Cybersecurity is threatened and
 Digital Diplomacy of the United States is a new method of
 neocolonialism and instrument of destabilization of hostile regimes
 and so on. These are exactly the words which are used in Russia.

 /But Mr. Yevsafyev do you think we could actually explain in full
 details to our listeners the essence of Cyber Diplomacy or Digital
 Diplomacy, however you call it./

 We have, first of all, to note that the cyber problem is very closely
 connected with Internet and the Internet was established in 1998,
 because at that time there was a decision to start The Internet
 Corporation for very innocent things, for assigned names and numbers,
 abbreviation is ICANN. It is based on the multi-stakeholder model, but
 whatever you say the whole thing belongs to the United States. They
 were very much ahead of technological development in cyberspace and
 they still dominate the Internet situation. Usually the problems are
 discussed in the so called Internet Government's Forums, abbreviation
 is IGF, but with the course of time it came out that it is a very
 multi-dimensional problem and Cyberspace Security is multi-sided
 because Cyberspace Security is, first of all, the security of
 day-to-day life of the international community, because invention of
 Internet and its establishment is a tremendous breakthrough in the
 usual man's life, you everything through the Internet, now. And it is
 very helpful in many ways in economic and social and all this kind of
 things. But with the course of time it came out that Internet is not
 that innocent, it could be used against the so called hostile regimes.
 We have seen this number of times.

 /But could you give us an example?/

 For example, only this year, which was very rich with all kinds of
 global cyber space manifestations, you all remember that there was a
 story of a so called Stuxnet Cyber Worm, which was introduced and
 penetrated the Iranian Nuclear Organization and to a logic stand has
 really destroyed, not physically, but, you know, it is a virtual
 thing, it destroyed the operation of many elements of Iranian Nuclear
 Industry.

 /But I've heard some analysts say that digital information
 technologies have also been used in the Balkans crisis, but is that
 truly so?/

 It has been also established, you remember when there was Balkan
 crisis, and Balkan crisis was closely connected with the activity of
 all kind of extreme Islamist movements and everybody was happy that in
 the long run the population in Kosovo and some other areas, dominated
 by Islamic religion, was introduced into the modern age through
 Internet, but then Special Services found out that numerous Internet
 cafes, which were established by hundreds of mosques around the
 Balkan-Muslim areas were, in fact, the centers through which the
 mobilization of extremist terrorist activity was arranged and after
 thorough inner investigations in the beginning of this century it was
 variably established that many of the would be conspirators and
 terrorist exchange the ideas through Internet and arrange their
 meetings and operations using the Internet facilities. So, it is not
 that simple, but nowadays we are very much in discussion of, for
 example, cyberspace attacks on hostile regimes.

 /Hostile regimes, so are we talking about direct Government
 involvement and new Foreign Policy too?/

 I'm quite sure that with certain extent, though the Americans deny
 this, but their General the Head of African Command said he was not
 rejected for any kind of weapons he asked for. African Command was
 responsible for handling of Libya's situation. Though Americans are
 trying to say that they were not using the cyberspace for attacking,
 for example, Libyan enter Aircrafts System, but funny enough the
 system, which was not a sophisticated system, but nevertheless, it
 stopped to operate.

 /You know, it is interesting, because I've been listening to Mr.
 Cross's lecture on the new opportunities, presented by the use of
 digital technologies and answering a question he reminded us of Robert
 Gates words that Cyberspace has become a new theatre of warfare, but
 then he also said that he didn't believe in Twitter Revolution and of
 course he never spoke of cyber warfare, you know./

 The problem is becoming more and more serious. Sometime ago, before
 the whole Arab Spring started the United States have distributed one
 100 000 computers free for local population in Arab countries. Of
 course, not all 100 000 computers that were distributed free found
 their way into the hands of opposition elements, but as it stands now
 major part of it was used to arrange the events of Arab Spring in
 different Arab countries: Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and so on. That made
 some people extremely worried, it was distributed free and the whole
 development, as it stands now, comes to a simple fact that Americans
 have admitted that Cyberspace is a very important instrument for their
 Foreign Policy and they are using it to impose the views on population
 and even some regimes in the outside world. Hillary Clinton is
 supposed to be godmother of creation of the new instrument of American
 Foreign Policy and we have a fact of creation special new department
 in the State Department of the United States, in the most important
 embassies they have special units, which are handling the cyber space.

 /But using for what? Can we specify the ultimate purpose of the operation?/

 There are different purposes: to prevent it's being used by terrorists
 but, on the other hand, they are using it to achieve their goals, so,
 in fact, we have a huge growing problem as it stands now. For example,
 the Pentagon, as stated, is attacked very often by hackers. This is
 another phenomena of the whole problem, and not only the private
 people are attacking but some foreign countries allegedly attack
 American net services of the Armed Forces and Navy and so on. And they
 stated that attack on their vital facilities is tent amount to
 declaring a war and in certain cases they allow themselves in reply,
 if they established and identified the source of attack and if it is
 state motivated attack, to claim that they can use nuclear weapons to
 punish the perpetrators.

 /But in that case there could always be a good justification for
 starting a war just considering the number of hacker attacks?/

 Of course, our people for example in Russia claim that there are about
 ten thousand cases of hacker attacks on government facilities in our
 country. The biggest problem of all is to identify the source of
 attack. For example, in the Stuxnet nobody was firmly sure that it was
 American or Israeli attack. Everybody is saying aloud about this but
 to prove is extremely difficult especially when we deal with countries
 of sophisticated nature and sophisticated achievements in this area.

 /But something needs to be done then. Is anything being done?/

 There is already growing effort in the world to try to find the way to
 cope with these problems and, for example, China, Russia and some
 other countries propose an international code of conduct for
 information security, their idea is to increase the role of
 governments in directing and operating the cyber space. Since
 Americans claim that they are going to defend their right to use cyber
 space without any hindrance, there is a growing difference but not
 only between Russia, China and the United States on the matter, but
 many other Western countries are also very much worried about the
 uncontrolled expansion of Internet and it being used by violent
 demonstrators, for example, in Britain the government of Britain is
 victim of many arranged demonstrations and this arrangement went
 through Internet and the Foreign Minister Hague has admitted that
 Internet requires some sort of control because it could not go
 uncontrolled like it is going now.

 /So, the problem is obviously there. But however Mr. Cross was
 insisting on what he termed as the openness of the Internet. Now the
 U.S. position as far as I understand it is that Internet should not be
 state controlled. But is there an alternative vision?/

 We have international efforts to start doing something. I already
 mentioned that there is Russian-Chine international code of conduct
 but there are meetings. For example, in Yekaterinburg recently this
 autumn there was a meeting of 52 countries arranged by our Security
 Council Office on the matters of Internet, and we have presented our
 views, Russian views, on that. Then in London on the 1st or on the 2nd
 of November there is going to be an international meeting for
 discussion of the problems of the global cyber space security.

 /But do the Americans support these efforts?/

 We must note that Americans got worried because there is definite
 effort to try to find common denominator on Internet among many
 countries. And as it is going now, it is definitely not on the
 American conditions but on the more balanced and serious attitude
 towards the possibility of controlling the cyber space. By the way,
 the treaty of collective security of former Soviet States recently had
 a meeting and there were critical elements in this meeting on this use
 of facebook, and tweeter, and youtube. This official dissemination of
 information is good but on the part of the Americans financial effort
 to support opposition and even insurgency activity in some countries,
 we have to admit that we don't have the same kind of developed
 instruments for diplomacy in Internet but people say that Washington
 has established its position in the Internet and they do not want to
 see them, they don't want to listen other countries and that's why we
 have to deal with all kinds of possibilities. For example, Americans
 would sooner or later leave Afghanistan and we will see huge problems
 for the Central Asian nations. And we already see the elements of
 American policy in the field of using cyber space to influence the
 mood and the future behavior of the population of the Central Asia
 when we are going to see that secular regimes in number of these
 countries fall. And Americans would try to introduce their elements
 into the real life in the area, which is so vital for Russia.

 /So, just let me specify, we are talking about Central Asia, an area,
 which is so far away from the U.S. itself./

 The experience shows that in Middle East, for example, Americans did
 not care. They brought out secular regimes and they now are very happy
 for a very short period of time with very dubious regimes with some
 dubious histories behind them.

 Well, Mr. Yevstafiev, thank you very much and I am quite positive that
 we are going to discuss this subject in our future programs and just
 to remind you, our guest speaker was Gennady Yevstafiev, retired
 Lieutenant General of the Russian Intelligence Service.
","2011-11-02 18:37:45",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/167291_-alpha-insight-ct-cyber-cyber-and-internet-governance-issues.html","marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com","attach/13/13943_GSC-CyberBulletin-4-October-2011.pdf"
168008,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   I disagree that Anonymous doesn't matter, but I agree the point of
   Tristan's piece is what makes this interesting.  innocent people could
   die, and that sucks.

   On 10/25/11 9:57 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     No, I didn't say that. 

     Sometimes we write about things--the most obvious and comparable example
     being Wikileaks-- that don't matter and explaining why they don't
     matter.  Another example being some of the grassroots terrorists who
     have been picked up in the US,  say Mohamad Osman Mohamad (sp?) for
     example.  He didn't matter, but we can provide a very good and cogent
     explanation of the threats he did and did not offer that few others do
     (or maybe no one else).

     But I don't think we have the expertise to truly deal with Anonymous and
     I don't care to give them more press for not doing much.  Tristan's
     piece on the other hand gets at a new and developing issue in what they
     are trying to do.  It's an anomaly i think that is worth covering.  It
     is probably the first time we will see violence as a result of their
     activities. 

     On 10/25/11 9:35 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

       So, until Anonymous doesn't become a national threat we shouldn't
       write about it?

       On 10/24/11 8:17 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         There's enough information on what's behind the Aurora attacks to
         respond and shut them down. 

         Change everything I said about SIGINT to CNO combined with
         all-source analysis and maybe human investigations.  Same point
         applies. With the low-level shit, it's usually not investigated.

         As far as I'm concerned an attack that matters is something
         seriously affects a country's capabilities relative to others.  (in
         this, intelligence can seriously affect those abilities, as it
         allows for them to be countered or become less advtantageous,
         relatively)
          

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: \"Tristan Reed\" <tristan.reed@stratfor.com>
         To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
         Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:33:59 PM
         Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels

         As far as Aurora, I haven't followed it closely. Did they ever
         identify the attackers or number of attackers? I thought the target
         set was the only thing that led people to believe the Chinese
         government was responsible.

         2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
         responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating
         cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case
         HUMINT is just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT
         capabilities does not indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers.
         NSA may have there own department for tracking hackers but it does
         not make it SIGINT.

         Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

         Wikipedia provides an indepth explanation on SIGINT . But in short,
         SIGINT is the capability in exploiting signals provided by
         communication devices, and what can be obtained by exploiting the
         signals. Combining computer network operations and SIGINT is
         innaccurate, because while SIGINT may be used with other
         intelligence disciplines in order to identify a hacker, it is not
         necessary and is no more related than any other intel discipline.
         SIGINT could help you identify a computer devices (not the operator)
         emitting a signal (wifi), and cryptanalysis, which is also separate
         from SIGINT but often used in conjunction, could help in providing
         methods to decrypt messages over a network, but SIGINT wouldn't
         obtain those messages.

         In order to exploit computer network operations, the operators
         involved are specifically trained in computer science disciplines
         and technologies tailored specifically for computer activity.

         NSA also is the primary agency for cryptanalysis. Because of
         technological demands of SIGINT and cryptanalysis, NSA has enormous
         resources in R&D, so I can see why the USG would move some CNO to
         NSA. But their SIGINT capabilities are not indicators of CNO
         capabilities.

         Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary
         labor for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are
         discussing operations on the scale of causing physical damage to
         extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of a cyber
         attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not mattered. 
         You chose the most prolific example of a cyber attack (which the
         whole operation consisted mainly outside of the cyber attack
         itself). Anything that falls short of this doesn't matter? Define
         what matters. None of anonymous' attacks have physically damaged
         secret Iranian nuclear facilities, but I think you are downplaying
         too much the significance of exposing corporate secrets, halting
         businesses' revenues, and embarrassing State actors by defacing
         their websites.

         On 10/24/11 5:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

           On 10/24/11 5:07 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

               1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already The USG
               arrested 10 Russian spies last year, are you willing to say
               foreign intel is not capable of conducting espionage
               undetected? No, of course not.  But I also would not argue
               that the SVR is so good to be immune to detection, as you are
               arguing with hackers.  I'm saying they are more detectable
               than you think.  There is no such thing as truly anonymous. 
               Everythign leaves a trail.  Will that trail in every instance
               lead to a single individual? no.  but it can lead to a place,
               an organization, and often, an individual. 

               2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
               responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to
               investigating cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to
               corroborate, in this case HUMINT is just as significant as
               SIGINT. A country's SIGINT capabilities does not indicate its
               capabilities in tracking hackers. NSA may have there own
               department for tracking hackers but it does not make it
               SIGINT.

               Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

               The question is if the attack is high priority enough.  Many
               people assume there is no attribution because there is no
               response, but I don't think that is accurate.  Many people say
               this, because no attribution is one reason for no response. 
               Yes, they do, and if they think that is the primary reason for
               lack of response, then I think they are wrong. 

               3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new
               laptop and start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack
               involves much more than a recently bought laptop.  In the same
               way there is an attack cycle for a terrorist attack or crime,
               there is one for a cyber attack.  A very simple attack may be
               as hard to trace as a nearly-random mugging in the dark in a
               neighborhood with much more serious crime and no CCTV
               cameras.  A more complicated attack, however, involves
               pre-operational surveillance, developing exploits, developing
               programs and code, gaining access, exploiting that, and
               carrying out an attack.  Discovering exploits and writing code
               can be done entirely offline, out of sight of law enforcement
               or intel agencies. Pre-operational surveillance and gaining
               access (the point of the exploit you write offline) would fit
               in my example. The point is, if you don't link your computer
               to identifiable information, you remain anonymous. Just like
               people use certain methods to build IEDs, people use certain
               mehtods to design programs and code for cyber attacks.  Over
               time, those methods become identifiable and more and more
               attributable. This is, for example, how AURORA is linked back
               to the Chinese.  and very specific Chinese, I may add. Being
               connected or unconnected doesn't matter, eventually you have
               to use what you develop, or copy from someone, and all of
               those things can be analyzed.   And that takes time, giving
               more time for your exposure Exposure comes from network
               activity with the target, a lot of the pre-operational phase
               of an attack can occur without network activity. Look at
               everything that went into Stuxnet as a great example, that
               couldn't be done with one person with a new laptop. Writing
               the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary labor
               for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are
               discussing operations on the scale of causing physical damage
               to extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of
               a cyber attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not
               mattered.   All of this activity provides activity and
               evidence which helps for attribution.  Of course it is always
               possible to develop an attack, just like any other operation,
               that even the best law enforcement and national intelligence
               agencies have trouble or cannot attribute.  That's fine.  My
               point is that it's very difficult for someone to successfully
               use Anonymous as a cover and have NSA, GHQ, MID, Aman, etc, be
               unable to attribute it.  How do you know if NSA or GHQ is
               effective in identifying hackers?I don't, but I'm confident
               they are far better than you are allowing for.    They may not
               choose to cover it if it is small scale crime, however. 
               On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                 I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state
                 sponsored cyber warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in
                 actually doing that, since you can conduct a cyber attack
                 without associating with a hacker group and still deny /
                 cover actions on behalf of the State. An individual
                 attacking US computer assets from China, may be working by
                 himself or on behalf of the Chinese government, but unless
                 the US has other intel on the Chinese government's cyber
                 warfare activities in order to corroborate there is little
                 capability to distinguish.

                 It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
                 operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT.
                 Assets from SIGINT would not directly help you track an
                 individual responsible for hacking State run servers. In the
                 past, I have turned to SIGINT organizations for collections
                 on computer related material, but this was due to the US
                 being behind in cyber warfare, and not knowing where to
                 assign responsibility. However, this has changed
                 dramatically in the last couple of years.

                 Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous.
                 As an extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in
                 cash, go to a Starbucks with free public wifi, and never
                 attribute the online activity to something revealing
                 (accessing personal email accounts, tweeting, entering
                 personal information to the laptop, etc..), and begin
                 hacking government email accounts then never use the laptop
                 again. Unless LEA could get an accurate description of my
                 appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible security
                 cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

                 Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer
                 to these enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities
                 tied to specific computer-related activities because of the
                 difficulty in identifying individuals.

                 I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be
                 blown, would be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But
                 what if a common participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was
                 working for a State? Anonymous has denounced state
                 governments before, if that State agent organizes an attack
                 amongst his IRC / Twitter buddies, what signs could a LEA
                 look for to distinguish?

                 On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

                   In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming
                   in a bit)

                   1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything
                   actually harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they
                   can't, but i'm very doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows
                   the first real case where they could do some minor
                   damage--to individual people, not not to an organization
                   or anything that would come as a serious or strategic
                   threat. 

                   2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is
                   actually pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous'
                   as a cover, but that would be pretty easy to bungle, and
                   could probably still be attributed if important enough to
                   those agencies.  The recent attack on Sony actually brings
                   this issue up- Whoever is calling themselves anonymous
                   denies they did it.  And keep in mind how much they have
                   claimed an publicized attacks in the past, even before
                   they were carried out.  The attack on the Playstation
                   Network was more sophisticated than anonymous' usual work
                   (though potentially coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS
                   attacks that distracted Sony's IT security).  But whoever
                   did it, again, no real damage came of it.  Congress is
                   holding hearings over data security, but this is no
                   different than the OC groups stealing your credit card
                   information.  LE will go after them, have some success,
                   but the threat is not that large. 
                   On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

                     I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity
                     to have a broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our
                     readers no nothing, or almost nothing about what this
                     group is and the threat it poses. Reviewing their list
                     of attacks
                     (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in
                     most of the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a
                     Robin Hood of the internet . The interesting thing when
                     it comes to their interactions with the cartels is the
                     dubious role they play: at the same time they can be
                     fighting crime by revealing cartel members/supporters,
                     but they can also put lives in risk.

                     However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed
                     by Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on
                     Earth, can conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is
                     worrisome.
                     (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

                     If I run an organization, if I am responsible for
                     government websites, or if I am just a internet user, I
                     would like to know more about these guys. Who they are?
                     What are they interested in? How they operate? Who they
                     have targeted so far? How can I defend myself from them?
                     In what countries are they active? Should I worry about
                     them at all? Can I use them to achieve any particular
                     goal?

                     On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                       nice.  i still think the central focus, and what
                       everything else can build off of, is that Anonymous
                       doesn't know the threat they pose to innocent people
                       caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing
                       on journalists or taxi drivers they show little
                       understanding of the situation.  This has long term
                       implications in not just Mexico.  They don't consider
                       the consequences of their actions and they act without
                       understanding the environment.  It was the same when
                       they released information on the Sony Playstation
                       network to protest Sony.  They hurt innocent people to
                       prove a point. 

                       On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                         Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of
                         discussing possible cartel responses, the focus is
                         on what type of threat Anonymous can pose to
                         cartels. The video released by Anonymous, threatens
                         revealing personal information on cartels as well as
                         states a member had been kidnapped. I could not find
                         any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the
                         individual being kidnapped. According to their
                         facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous
                         Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual
                         posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the Operation
                         Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

                         Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
                         distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on
                         government websites, lashed out at drug cartels via
                         the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
                         criminal cartels, including a video depicting a
                         masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on
                         October 10? With the most recent video release,
                         Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal
                         cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing
                         identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
                         journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The
                         hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow
                         kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. In the
                         Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                         mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                         reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped
                         member are not met. The potential of conflict
                         between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
                         presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of
                         cartels lashing out at online bloggers, but I
                         haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing with
                         any headaches from hackers before. 

                         What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                              o     Anonymous would not pose a direct
                         physical security threat to Mexican cartels.
                              o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to
                         exploit online media
                              o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in
                         Mexico to lash out at cartels

                         While not certain, there is a potential for
                         Anonymous to pose a threat
                              o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to
                         possess identifiable information on cartel members
                              o     It is unknown what information Anonymous
                         could acquire on cartels
                              o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
                         communications, identifiable information on cartels
                         members have to be considered in the realm of
                         possibilities for
                                     Anonymous
                                     o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's
                         ability to reveal illicit online activity (child
                         pornography rings)

                         Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in
                         the ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in
                         Mexico. As a result, their understanding of cartel
                         activities may be limited. Anonymous may act with
                         confidence when sitting in front of a computer, but
                         this may blind them to any possible retribution.
                         They may not even know the impact of any online
                         assault of cartels.
                              o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
                         journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not
                         understand some of these individuals are forced to
                         collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are
                         often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
                         halcones. Revealing the identity of these
                         individuals will not have a significant impact on
                         cartel                   operations. Politicans have
                         been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
                         Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to
                         be any consequences from this.
                              o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the
                         extent cartels are willing to go protect their
                         operations.
                                 o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                                 o    Cartels have reached out to the
                         computer science community before, coercing computer
                         science majors into working for them.
                                 o    This provides the cartels with the
                         possibility of discovering hackers within Mexico.

                          

                         On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                           Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like
                           the idea but there are several issues to address
                           and fix here.

                           These are the bullets of my main analytical
                           concern with the discussion:

                                o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why.
                           that's fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                                o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                           difference between stealing bank records from
                           government computers and overloading
                           www.loszetas.com main page.
                                o     There's no thought out process of what
                           sort of information could anon have on the
                           cartels. What kind of info is kept online and
                           accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
                           talking about identities, whose? If anything it's
                           dirty cops, politicians and businessmen who need
                           to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
                           Think about why the bloggers and media were killed
                           in previous instances. Was it because they
                           revealed operational details, because they acted
                           as informants, because they exposed links with
                           officials or because they somehow sullied the
                           cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
                           information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                                o     Once you identify this info - think
                           about if anon can realistically access it and
                           disseminate it so it causes a measure of damage.
                           Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except
                           for the technical ability by a very small number
                           of its members to infiltrate certain networks and
                           databases and steal information. Now what kind of
                           information would a cartel keep on a network that
                           is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)?
                           Where else could information be found? Government
                           databases? Once we know what kind of information
                           is accessible, we can also know more about the
                           consequences of dissemination.
                                o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel?
                           Sufficient to trace back attacks? If it's not,
                           there risks to be a lot of killings done by people
                           who may not understand the difference between an
                           anon hacker and a blogger.

                           On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                             wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                             -------- Original Message --------

                              Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs     
                                       Cartels                                
                                 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500        
                                 From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>     
                             Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>               
                                   To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>               

                             you've got some of the issues here, but this is
                             going to need a lot more work

                             You need to lay out:

                             a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your
                             trigger section is unclear
                             b) what our assessment of the online cartel
                             presence is, and therefore their vulnerabilities
                             and capabilities
                             c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high
                             security anything
                             d) how far the cartels would be willing to
                             travel to kill anyone who breaches their systems
                             or exposes their connections

                             I also just want to point out that we have
                             reasonable reliable insight that Sinaloa at the
                             very least has some significant levels of
                             sophistication in their online presence, to
                             include the use of cyber currencies and
                             significant IT capacity. There is no reason to
                             assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
                             business online, in a protected fashion.

                             Karen Hooper
                             Latin America Analyst
                             o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                             c: 512.750.7234
                             STRATFOR
                             www.stratfor.com
                             On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                             On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
","2011-10-25 17:35:41",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/168008_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
168783,"Re: intel guidance - europe
","   According to the person from the IMF whom I have talked with, \"Greek
   authorities are monitoring the cash flow position closely and they believe
   that they can manage until mid-December.\"

   This graphic shows what they mean by mid-December (I can't way for
   December 29 to arrive!):

   Greek payments
   On 11/2/11 10:11 PM, Christoph Helbling wrote:

     We still haven't heard the opinion of the IMF! I think we have to find
     out what role the troika plays in handing out the money. What if the
     money is handed out despite the protests (at least in the media) from
     Merkel and Sarkozy's side? That is a possibility right?

     On 11/2/11 9:57 PM, Lauren Goodrich wrote:

 On it! The FODs are in France right now & said nothing is decided (and i mean nothing) until either Friday or the 8th in Berlin. I am trying to set up a session to game out all possibilities for Fri with FODs. They're being cautious in France. They also reminded me that the date for Med in Greece is up in the air--meaning Russia could cancel or speed it up.

 Sent from my iPhone

 On Nov 2, 2011, at 9:23 PM, Peter Zeihan <zeihan@stratfor.com> wrote:


 The Germans and French have cut off bailout money to Greece. This means Greece will run out of money very quickly and default. Perhaps even before the referendum. The timeline for the European crisis just accelerated disastrously.

 Questions we need to break down:

 1) Kristen: Need to dive into Greek politics tomorrow to see if we can form a forecast as to whether Papa-G can survive the confidence vote. That's probably going to need to be tomorrow's diary? If the answer is no, then this unwinds somewhat.

 2) Adriano: Assuming the answer to #1 is yes, we need to find out how long Greece can last with the money in Athens' pockets right now, with no additional outlays from the EFSF. The IMF is likely the best source of unbiased (well, less biased) information in that regard.

 3) Christoph: We need to be sure that German control of the EFSF is as strong as we think it is. Time to make some friends at the Facility to get their point of view of this latest twist to the crisis.

 4) Lauren: I'm floored that the Russians aren't being tapped. This is getting disturbingly serious. Please buzz your FODs (friends of Dvorkovich) again to see if anything is changing as regards the G20/EFSF/$$$ commitments.

 5) Everyone else: Its possible the Germans/French are going to try and reach out in light of the Greek situation to build up the EFSF. China, Korea and Brazil are the three states that'll be at the G20 (besides Russia) who could theoretically make a meaningful contribution. Considering that they are all en route at present the chances of hearing something in their capitals is slim, but its worth seeing if we can pick up anything.








 --
 Christoph Helbling
 ADP
 STRATFOR

 --
 Adriano Bosoni - ADP
","2011-11-03 17:06:18",1,"2012-02-28 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/168783_re-intel-guidance-europe-.html","adriano.bosoni@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com","attach/13/13981_Greek payments.jpg"
170037,"Re: MORE*: G3/B3 - GREECE - Greece to call referendum on new EU
	aid	deal
","   Well this'll get exciting

   On Oct 31, 2011, at 9:01 PM, Michael Wilson <michael.wilson@stratfor.com>
   wrote:

     Some clarity from these articles. The referendum won't be until next
     year, probably January. But there will be a vote on whether to have the
     referendum, this week, on Friday, and it will be tied to a confidence
     vote which he is expected to pass with 3 votes

     Greek PM gambles on referendum for new debt deal; vote expected early
     2012

      
     http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/markets/greek-prime-minister-calls-referendum-on-new-debt-deal-no-date-given/2011/10/31/gIQA5NdjZM_story.html

     By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, October 31, 4:39 PM

     ATHENS, Greece a** Taking a huge political gamble, Greecea**s prime
     minister announced Monday that his debt-strapped country will hold a
     referendum on the new European debt deal reached last week a** the first
     such vote in 37 years.

     Prime Minister George Papandreou appeared to take many lawmakers by
     surprise by saying that a hard-bargained agreement that took months for
     Europea**s leaders to hammer out will be put to a public ballot.
     He gave no date or other details on the proposed referendum, which would
     be the first in Greece since 1974, when the monarchy was abolished by a
     landslide vote months after the collapse of a military dictatorship.

     a**This will be the referendum: The citizen will be called upon to say a
     big a**yesa** or a big a**noa** to the new loan arrangement,a**
     Papandreou told Socialist members of parliament. a**This is a supreme
     act of democracy and of patriotism for the people to make their own
     decision ... We have a duty to promote the role and the responsibility
     of the citizen.a**
     The move allows Socialist lawmakers a** who have been vilified by an
     increasingly hostile public during months of strikes, sit-ins and
     violent protests over rounds of austerity measures a** to pass the
     responsibility for the countrya**s fate to the Greek people themselves.

     Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos, a constitutional law professor,
     said the referendum was called after opposition parties repeatedly
     failed to side with the government in negotiations between Greece and
     other eurozone members.
     a**Greece is living through a drama, from which it must be released by
     asking the people to express its will,a** Venizelos told parliament.

     a**Each citizen will make his own decision, with responsibility, in a
     process that will provide a national sense of relief and recovery.a**

     Later he told private Antenna television: a**It is very clear: The new
     agreement will be submitted to parliament for approval and then
     submitted to the judgment of the Greek people ... the Greek people can
     of course say a**noa** but must bear in mind the consequences of that
     decision.a**
     Venizelos indicated the referendum would be held early next year, after
     weeks of complex negotiations to finalize details of the new agreement.

     The new debt deal aims to seek 50 percent losses for private holders of
     Greek bonds and provide the troubled eurozone member with a*NOT100
     billion ($140 billion) in additional rescue loans.

     Papandreoua**s government has seen its majority reduced to just three
     seats in parliament and its approval ratings plummet amid harsh
     austerity measures that are sending the country into a fourth year of
     recession in 2012.

     The EU statistics agency Eurostat estimated in a report issued Monday
     that unemployment in Greece reached 17.6 percent in July a** even higher
     than the Greek estimate for that month of 16.5 percent.

     a**This is just the latest twist in the unfolding Greek tragedy,a** said
     Sony Kapoor, managing director of Re-Define, a London-based think tank.

     a**With an irresponsible opposition that is promising Greek voters the
     moon, it is very difficult to see how this referendum could be won under
     the ongoing gut-wrenching austerity.a**

     Greece calls referendum on EU bail-out
     http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/68748490-03f5-11e1-98bc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1cPlCODKu
     Last updated: October 31, 2011 10:46 pm
     By Kerin Hope in Athens, Peter Spiegel in Brussels and Telis Demos in
     New York
     Greek Prime Minister George PapandreouGetty

     Greecea**s prime minister unexpectedly announced a referendum to approve
     a second EU bail-out deal for his austerity-hit country, less than a
     week after it was agreed with international creditors at a European
     Union summit.

     George Papandreou made the pledge on Monday night in a speech to
     lawmakers in his fractious PanHellenic Socialist Movement (Pasok) party
     but did not set a specific date for the vote.

     a**We have faith in our citizens, we believe in their judgment and
     therefore in their decision,a** Mr Papandreou said after rejecting a
     call for early elections by some socialist politicians. a**All the
     countrya**s political forces should support the [bail-out] agreement.
     The citizens will do the same once they are fully informed.a**

     The premiera**s move reinforced concerns that Greecea**s fraught
     domestic politics are spiralling out of control amid growing popular
     anger over public sector job cuts and tax increases. Strikes and violent
     demonstrations have become frequent in Athens and other cities.

     The referendum also looked likely to cause alarm in Brussels, Paris and
     Berlin after Mr Papandreoua**s assurances at Wednesdaya**s summit that
     Greece was determined to maintain a steady pace of reform.

     Thanks to some help from the European Commission, we have a bit more
     clarity on where European leaders will be spending the new a*NOT130bn in
     Greek bail-out aid

     One senior EU official told the Financial Times that Mr Papandreou had
     appeared reticent about the components of the bail-out package during
     talks at last weeka**s summit of EU presidents and prime ministers but
     no one was prepared for the referendum announcement that came a**like a
     bolt out of the bluea**.
     a**I dona**t think anyone expected this,a** the official said. a**The
     calculation has to be this is the only way [Papandreou] believes he can
     get this through.a**

     a**With an irresponsible opposition that is promising Greek voters the
     moon, it is very difficult to see how this referendum could be won,a**
     added Sony Kapoor, head of Re-Define, an economic consultancy. a**The
     decision is good for democracy but is likely to make the euro crisis
     worse by heightening uncertainty in this very fragile environment.a**

     The announcement exacerbated declines in the euro and equities, as
     investors feared that angry Greek voters could derail the painstakingly
     negotiated plan.

     The euro fell to a session low of $1.3827, down more than 2 per cent on
     the day and erasing its gains from last week, when the deal was first
     announced. US stocks accelerated their decline as well, with the S&P 500
     index ending the day down 2.5 per cent. It was the indexa**s worst
     one-day fall in nearly a month, ending what had been stocksa** best
     month since 1991, with a gain of 10.7 per cent, on a sour note.

     An opinion poll published on Sunday showed that more than 60 per cent of
     Greeks were opposed to the terms of the new bail-out, which would
     include another 100,000 job losses over the next three years and big
     cuts in pensions.

     The vote would probably be held in January, when Greek bondholders were
     expected to sign up for a voluntary 50 per cent haircut being negotiated
     with the International Institute of Finance, wrapping up the new
     bail-out package. One Athens banker said: a**This is a worrying decision
     by the prime minister. It could derail the whole process even before
     ita**s properly started.a**

     The premier also announced that a vote of confidence in his government
     would be held this week to endorse the referendum proposal. That vote
     would follow a three-day debate on Greecea**s worsening economic and
     social problems

     Antonis Samaras, the conservative opposition leader, immediately
     rejected the proposal, arguing that a referendum was a**not the way
     outa**.

     a**The only option is elections and, like Ireland and Portugal, to
     request the obviously necessary changes in the bail-out agreement,a** he
     added, referring to proposals by leaders of the two other eurozone
     member states that are implementing EU-IMF programmes.

     Mr Papandreou said this year he might call a referendum on reforms of
     Greecea**s political system but ruled out a vote on its relationship
     with the eurozone. His sudden reversal came as a shock, according to
     party officials. a**This is another upset in a situation that is already
     volatile,a** one said.

     Greece to Hold Referendum on New Debt Deal
     By NIKI KITSANTONIS and RACHEL DONADIO
     Published: October 31, 2011

       
     http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/world/europe/greece-to-hold-referendum-on-new-debt-deal.html
     ATHENS a** In a surprise move that jolted Europe and put his political
     future in play, Prime Minister George A. Papandreou announced Monday
     that his government would hold a referendum on a new aid package for
     Greece, putting austerity measures a** and potentially membership in the
     euro zone a** to a popular vote for the first time.

     Analysts said the vote on the austerity package did not immediately
     threaten the comprehensive agreement reached by European leaders last
     week to shore up the euro zone. More likely, they said, a rejection by
     the voters would be treated as a vote of no confidence in the government
     and lead to early elections.

     But the decision to go ahead with the vote introduces a note of
     uncertainty in what had seemed to be a done deal. The anxiety stirred up
     by those fears hammered United States financial markets on Monday,
     showing once again how the domestic politics of even the smallest
     members of the European Union can create troubles that not only threaten
     the currency but reverberate around the globe.

     Addressing lawmakers on Monday evening, Mr. Papandreou said the decision
     on whether to adopt the deal, which includes fresh financial assistance,
     debt relief and deeply unpopular austerity measures, properly belonged
     to the Greek people.

     a**Let us allow the people to have the last word, let them decide on the
     countrya**s fate,a** he said.

     The move was widely seen as an effort by Mr. Papandreou to shore up his
     flagging political fortunes and to avoid the instability of early
     elections. The center-right opposition has opposed the bulk of the
     austerity program, and the prime ministera**s popular support has
     dwindled as Greeks have been hit by a seemingly endless series of tax
     increases and wage and pension cuts.

     A referendum would in effect shift responsibility for the nationa**s
     painful economic choices from Mr. Papandreoua**s Socialist Party onto
     the public.

     By framing the debate as one of continuing to use the euro or returning
     to the drachma, the move also appeared to give the Greek government a
     bit more breathing room a** and leverage a** in negotiations with Europe
     over the debt deal, proving that a matter that some in Germany had hoped
     had been settled last week still had the potential to be reopened.

     a**Ita**s not motivated by the intention of some sort of brinkmanship
     with Europe, but it may have this sort of positive or negative
     effect,a** said George Pagoulatos, a professor of European politics and
     economy at the Athens University of Economics and Business. a**It raises
     the stakes. Ita**s about, a**Will we remain in the euro with a lower
     public debt or will we lose everything that we will achieve?a** a**

     At a time when Mr. Papandreou is under intense political and social
     pressure, including from members of his own Socialist Party, the move
     was seen as the last card he could play.

     It was still unclear how the referendum question would be posed, but Mr.
     Papandreou said the vote would be on whether Greeks supported the debt
     deal and the program of austerity measures in exchange for foreign aid.

     The stakes are extremely high. A no vote would not only be likely to
     bring down the Greek government, it could break the deal between Greece
     and its so-called troika of foreign lenders a** the European Union,
     European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund a** which have
     demanded structural changes and austerity measures in exchange for aid.

     Without the aid, Greece would not be able to meet its expenses and would
     default on its debt, and send shockwaves through the euro zone and the
     world economy.

     Mr. Papandreou also said that he would seek a parliamentary vote of
     confidence in his administration, just four months after winning a
     similar vote before pushing an earlier batch of austerity measures into
     law. The vote of confidence is expected to be held on Friday evening,
     and Mr. Papandreou is expected to squeak by with his narrow three-vote
     majority in Parliament.
     Government officials said the referendum would probably be held in
     January, essentially buying the government time while the details of the
     debt deal are hammered out.

     Addressing lawmakers on Monday evening, Finance Minister Evangelos
     Venizelos raised the stakes further by framing the debate as one of
     Greece staying in the euro zone a** the group of 17 European Union
     countries that use the euro. a**Ita**s for the people to decide to stay
     in Europe or go back to the drachma,a** he said.

     Takis Michas, a political analyst and the project director of Forum for
     Greece, an Athens research institute, said posing the question this way
     was a**a master stroke on behalf of Papandreou in the sense it is
     forcing the various parties to take a very responsible position.a**

     a**If he succeeds in framing the issue as being one of remaining in the
     euro zone, obviously he is going to get a huge yes,a** Mr. Michas added.
     a**But it depends on whether he can frame the question in those
     terms.a**

     Under the Greek Constitution, the government must propose the language
     of the referendum, which would need to be approved by Parliament and
     then by the president.

     Some analysts said the referendum was an invitation for instability.
     a**People are very discontented with him personally and toward his
     economic policy, and in these kinds of circumstances when the debate is
     very passionate and things are tense, holding a referendum could be
     risky,a** said Alexis Papahelas, the editor of the center-right daily
     Kathimerini.

     a**If the referendum fails, obviously everything will be in disarray,a**
     he added. a**Probably we will go to elections, but we have a very big
     chance that the country would go into a disorderly default.a**

     Last Thursday, after European leaders and the International Monetary
     Fund had finally reached an accord, Mr. Papandreou had hailed a**a new
     day for Europe and for Greece.a** But the deal has proved broadly
     unpopular among Greeks, who do not understand how it will translate into
     immediate relief.

     Papandreou Calls on Greeks to Back EU Debt Accord in Referendum
     October 31, 2011, 9:05 PM EDT

     http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-31/papandreou-calls-on-greeks-to-back-eu-debt-accord-in-referendum.html

     Nov. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou said voters
     will give him support to forge ahead with economic reforms as he pledged
     a referendum on the European Uniona**s latest accord on the nationa**s
     financing.

     a**For the new agreement, we must go to a referendum for Greeks to
     decide,a** Papandreou told lawmakers of his ruling socialist Pasok party
     in statements carried live yesterday from Athens on state-run Vouli TV.
     a**Democracy is alive and well and Greeks are being called to rise to a
     national duty beyond the regular electoral processes.a**

     Papandreoua**s gambit risks pushing the country into default if rejected
     by voters, and raises the ante with dissidents inside his own party.
     Papandreoua**s popularity has plunged after a raft of austerity measures
     cut pensions and wages, increased taxes and sparked a wave of social
     unrest. An opinion poll published Oct. 29 showed most Greeks believe the
     accord on a new bailout package and a debt writedown is negative.

     a**Papandreou could lose the referendum, which means that new elections
     would have to be called,a** Thomas Costerg, European economist at
     Standard Chartered Bank in London, said in an e-mail. a**Heightened
     Greek uncertainty could propagate to other fragile euro-area countries,
     in particular Italy.a**

     Most of the 1,009 people surveyed on Oct. 27, the day the agreement was
     announced, said the accord should be put to a referendum, according to
     the results of the Kapa Research SA poll, published in To Vima
     newspaper. Forty-six percent said theya**d oppose the plan at such a
     referendum. In the same poll, more than seven in 10 favored Greece
     remaining in the euro.

     Confidence Vote

     Papandreou also told lawmakers hea**ll seek a vote of confidence in
     parliament. The referendum will likely be held after details of the EU
     accord are wound up, Papandreou said. The vote of confidence will begin
     tomorrow and conclude late on Nov. 4, according to statements yesterday
     by House Speaker Filipos Petsalnikos.

     EU leaders carved out a second aid package for Greece at a summit in
     Brussels lasting into the early hours of Oct. 27, after Papandreou
     scraped together parliamentary approval for the second round of
     austerity measures in four months. Greece will receive 130 billion euros
     ($180 billion) in public funds plus a 50 percent writedown on Greek
     debt, following a fully taxpayer- funded package of 110 billion euros
     extended in May 2010.

     Venizelosa**s View

     a**I can no longer look at polls where the majority is against the
     agreement, the majority is against the program, but a majority is also
     in favor of staying in the euro,a** Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos
     said on Antenna TV after Papandreou announced his decision. A a**noa**
     vote at the referendum would lead to a**developmentsa** that the
     government would assess, Venizelos said.

     Papandreou, whose term ends in 2013, is seeking renewed support to push
     through measures including job cuts to turn around an economy that is
     set to shrink 5.5 percent this year. The program involves new taxes and
     cuts in spending to plug the EUa**s second-biggest budget gap.

     The state budget deficit widened to 19.2 billion euros in the January to
     end-September period from 16.7 billion euros a year earlier, according
     to an e-mailed statement from the Athens-based Finance Ministry
     yesterday.

     Opposition parties repeated their call for elections. Papandreoua**s
     plans are a**recklessa** and put Greecea**s EU membership at risk, lead
     opposition New Democracy party spokesman Yiannis Michelakis said.

     a**Dangerousa**

     Papandreou a**has tossed Greecea**s future in Europe in the air like a
     coin,a** Michelakis said in an e-mailed statement from NDa**s Athens
     offices yesterday. a**He is dangerous and must go. There is a solution:
     elections now. Ita**s the safest a**referendum.a**a**

     Papandreou now has just a three-seat majority in parliament and won
     approval for his latest austerity package amid protests that left one
     person dead. The budget measures prompted a near- rebellion in
     Papandreoua**s party and violence in the streets.

     The New Democracy party, led by Antonis Samaras, would win 22 percent of
     the vote in elections, with Papandreoua**s Pasok party receiving 14.7
     percent, and neither getting enough to form a majority in Parliament,
     according to the Kapa poll. More than 26 percent of voters said they
     were undecided on who to back. The margin of error is 3.09 percentage
     points.

     Separately, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association said
     that the euro-area proposals for Greek bonds appear to involve a**a
     voluntary exchange that would not be binding on all holders,a**
     according to an e-mailed statement.

     a**As such, it does not appear to be likely that the euro zone proposal
     will trigger payments under existing CDS contracts,a** the statement
     said. a**However, whether or not it does so will be decided by the
     Determinations Committee on the basis of specific facts, if a request is
     made to them.a**

     The ISDA statement late yesterday follows a review of whether the
     proposal would constitute a a**credit eventa** for holders of
     credit-default swaps linked to the securities.

     --With assistance from Jennifer Ryan in London and Antonis Galanopoulos
     in Athens. Editors: Digby Lidstone, Craig Stirling, Kevin Costelloe

     To contact the reporters responsible for this story: Maria Petrakis in
     Athens at mpetrakis@bloomberg.net; Natalie Weeks in Athens at
     nweeks2@bloomberg.net; Marcus Bensasson in Athens at
     mbensasson@bloomberg.net

     To contact the editor responsible for this story: Tim Quinson at
     tquinson@bloomberg.net

     Greek PM calls referendum on new EU aid deal
     http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/31/us-greece-referendum-idUSTRE79U5PQ20111031
     By Dina Kyriakidou and Harry Papachristou

     ATHENS | Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:50pm EDT

     (Reuters) - Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou called an unexpected
     referendum on Monday on the EU bailout deal for his debt-ridden country,
     a move that could necessitate a snap election if a public angry with
     swinging austerity measures rejects the deal.

     Pressured by his own lawmakers to share the heavy political burden of
     belt-tightening with other parties, Papandreou said he needed wider
     political support for the fiscal measures and structural reforms
     required by international lenders.

     \"We trust citizens, we believe in their judgment, we believe in their
     decision,\" he told ruling Socialist party deputies. \"In a few weeks the
     (EU) agreement will be a new loan contract... we must spell out if we
     are accepting it or if we are rejecting it.\"

     Analysts said holding a referendum was a baffling decision, given that
     the latest survey showed a majority of Greeks taking a negative view of
     the bailout deal.

     Opposition parties reacted angrily, accusing Papandreou of looking for a
     way out for his embattled party by dragging Greece, which has seen
     violent clashes between protesters and riot police, through a lengthy
     period of political instability.

     The euro extended losses against the dollar after the announcement,
     tumbling more than 2 percent to a session low.

     Papandreou, grappling with Greece's worst financial crisis in 40 years,
     had discussed holding a referendum but many people were shocked at the
     prospect of weary, disgruntled citizens being asked to decide whether to
     accept or reject the bailout.

     \"Mr. Papandreou is dangerous, he tosses Greece's EU membership like a
     coin in the air,\" said conservative opposition New Democracy party
     spokesman Yannis Michelakis. \"He cannot govern and instead of
     withdrawing honorably, he dynamites everything.\"

     New Democracy leader Antonis Samaras will visit President Karolos
     Papoulias on Tuesday to discuss developments and push for snap
     elections, party officials said.

     Weekend polls showed most Greeks took a negative view of the decision by
     euro zone leaders last week to hand cashed-strapped Athens a second,
     130-billion-euro bailout and a 50-percent write-down on its enormous
     debt to make it sustainable.

     \"I never expected Papandreou to take such a dangerous and frivolous
     decision,\" said Dora Bakoyanni, former foreign minister and leader of
     the small center-right Democratic Alliance party. \"Tomorrow all the
     international media will say that Greece itself is putting the EU deal
     at risk.\"

     Germany issued a statement saying the EU was working hard to put the
     second Greek aid package in place by the end of the year and had no
     comment on the referendum. EU leaders hammered out the deal last week,
     fearing the Greek debt crisis would speed to other euro zone countries
     and shake global markets.

     \"If there was to be a referendum, we may reasonably conclude that they
     may not accept the austerity measures. We may conclude that it will
     bring the pack of cards tumbling down,\" said Howard Wheeldon, senior
     strategist at BGC Partners in London.

     Papandreou also said he would ask for a vote of confidence to secure
     support for his policy for the rest of his four-year term, which expires
     in 2013.

     Analysts said he was likely to win that, despite dissent among his
     parliamentary team. He was forced to expel a senior party member for
     voting against part of his latest austerity package and others warned
     him it was the last time they would vote for measures they did not
     believe in.

     Parliament officials said the confidence debate would begin on
     Wednesday, with a vote on Thursday or Friday.

     LEGALITY QUESTIONED

     Papandreou said the referendum would ask Greeks whether or not they
     agreed to the deal and would take place in a few weeks. Finance Minister
     Evangelos Venizelos told Greek TV it would probably be held early next
     year.

     But parliamentarians questioned its legality under the constitution,
     which does not allow referendums on economic issues, only on matters of
     great national importance.

     The last time Greeks held a referendum was in December 1974, when they
     voted to abolish the monarchy shortly after the collapse of a military
     dictatorship.

     \"It's debatable whether the constitution allows such a referendum,\" said
     Fotis Kouvelis, leader of the small Democratic Left party. \"The country
     must go to early elections. Given the situation, it's the most honorable
     solution.\"

     For a referendum result to be binding, there must be a minimum 40
     percent turnout on issues of \"crucial national importance\" and 50
     percent on a law that has already been voted on in parliament and
     \"regulates a serious social issue,\" according to legislation enacted
     earlier this year. It was not clear which option the government would
     favor.

     \"If the referendum answer is no, Papandreou has to resign,\" said Costas
     Panagopoulos, an analyst at polling firm Alco.

     \"In the meantime what will happen with the decisions the EU took last
     week? I cannot understand what the prime minister wants to do. It could
     be the only way he has to leave the government, to share
     responsibility.\"

     Nearly 60 percent of Greeks view Thursday's EU summit agreement on the
     new bailout package as negative or probably negative, a survey showed on
     Saturday.

     Several lawmakers have defected from Papandreou's Socialist party over
     the packages of austerity measures enacted to qualify for bailout
     payments under last year's aid agreement, and the party trails in
     opinion polls.

     New Democracy is rising fast in opinion polls, but no party would win
     outright if polls were held now, leading to coalition governments or
     repeated elections.

     \"The prime minister is obviously stuck in a dead end and he is leading
     the country down a very dangerous slope,\" said far right LAOS party MP
     Makis Voridis.

     Greek Vote Threatens Bailout
     Premier Calls for Surprise Referendum Days After European Leaders OK Aid
     Deal

         EUROPE NEWS
         NOVEMBER 1, 2011
      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204394804577010091283798750.html
     By ALKMAN GRANITSAS, MARCUS WALKER and COSTAS PARIS

     ATHENSa**Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou stunned Europe by
     announcing a referendum on his country's latest bailouta**a high-stakes
     gamble that could undermine the international effort to preserve the
     euro.

     A \"yes\" vote in the referendum could deflate the massive street protests
     and strikes that threaten to paralyze Greece as it tries to enact a
     brutal austerity program to earn rescue loans from the euro zone and the
     International Monetary Fund.

     A \"no\" vote, however, could bring down the government and cut off
     international funding for Greece, leaving the country facing a financial
     meltdown. The government expects to hold the referendum in January.

     Some Greek government officials believe a defeat in the referendum could
     propel their country out of the euro zone. Many European policy makers
     fear that a messy Greek default could spark a financial-market panic
     that would particularly affect Italy, a major European economy that's
     already struggling to retain investors' trust.

     Mr. Papandreou's dramatic announcement, which he delivered late Monday
     in a speech to lawmakers, renders the outcome of Europe's debt crisis
     more uncertain than ever. It comes less than a week after euro-zone
     leaders agreed on a \"comprehensive package\" of measures to keep Greece
     afloat, reassure financial markets and stabilize the region. That
     agreement was supposed to ensure that Athens avoids a unilateral debt
     default, restructures its debts in cooperation with bondholders, and
     cuts its budget deficit further in return for a a*NOT130 billion ($180
     billion) bailout.

     With the fate of the deal in the lap of Greek voters, the euro crisis is
     likely to dominate this week's summit of the Group of 20 leading global
     economies in Cannes, France. For months, the U.S. government has been
     pressing Europe to resolve the two-year-old Greek debt crisis, which is
     undermining investor confidence in ever-growing swaths of the euro
     currency zone. The lingering uncertainty, in turn, has hurt confidence
     in global financial markets, and the looming referendum will only
     accentuate that.

     The announcement in Athens roiled financial markets late Monday, pushing
     the euro down 2.1% against the dollar to $1.3859, the European
     currency's biggest one-day slide in six months. Already-weak U.S. stocks
     sank further into the red. The Dow Jones Industrial Average suffered its
     worst daily decline in a month, falling 276.10 points, or 2.26%, to
     11955.01. \"Maybe the [Greek bailout] deal is in jeopardy,\" said Stephen
     Leuer, a floor trader at X-FA trading. \"Any sort of doubt is definitely
     going to set us back,\" he said, adding that U.S. markets are \"very
     sensitive\" to news from Europe at present.

     Greece's embattled leader decided to go for a referendum as a way of
     shoring up support for the drastic government spending cuts and tax
     hikes that his country's parlous finances have forced him to enact,
     Greek officials say.

     Mr. Papandreou, who inherited a fiscal mess after winning election in
     2009 as head of a Socialist administration, has had to slash Greeks'
     cherished welfare entitlements to please the country's international
     creditors, in the face of opposition from labor unions and parts of his
     own party.

     Prime Minister George Papandreou announces a referendum on a debt deal.

     The mild-mannered, U.S.-born premier floated the idea of a referendum
     earlier this year as public hostility to austerity mounted, but he
     backed off amid fears that such a move would be destabilizing for Greece
     and for Europe.

     In recent weeks, however, public and parliamentary patience with
     austerity and an ever-deepening recession has stretched thin, weakening
     Mr. Papandreou's authority.

     The government needs a stronger democratic mandate to implement last
     week's bailout agreement with Europe and the IMF, Mr. Papandreou told a
     stunned audience of Socialist lawmakers on Monday. For that, he said,
     \"we need to go to a referendum.\"

     The question put to voters will be simple, he said: \"Do we want to adopt
     the new agreement? Or do we want to reject it?\" The popular verdict
     would be binding, he added. \"If the Greek people do not want it to be
     implemented, very simply it won't be implemented.\"

     What would happen next is anything but clear. A binding voter rejection
     of Europe's terms for a bailout would leave euro-zone leaders such as
     German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy
     with a bitter choice. Either they let Greece default on its a*NOT355
     billion of public debt, risking panic throughout Europe's
     government-bond markets and banking sectors; or they cave in and offer
     Greece more generous bailout terms.

     Relaxing Greece's bailout terms would anger voters in Germany and other
     countries who are already resentful of having to subsidize Greece, a
     country that is widely viewed in Europe as having lived beyond its means
     for years. It could also prompt other recipients of rescue
     loansa**Ireland and Portugala**to demand similarly generous treatment.
     That, in turn, would test both the political tolerance and the financial
     wherewithal of Europe's core economies to support weaker euro nations.

     A Greek referendum on its bailout, for the first time in the two-year
     crisis, would put what many Greeks view as draconian spending cuts
     demanded by Athens' international creditors to a democratic test. The
     result of the vote could reverberate around the euro zone, putting
     pressure on governments in other European countries that are enacting
     austerity measures to stem the debt crisis to ask for their voters'
     consent.

     Opinion polls suggest Mr. Papandreou faces a struggle to convince an
     increasingly angry electorate. A survey published at the weekend showed
     that 58.9% of Greeks oppose last week's European deal; there are fears
     that the planned debt restructuring will bring further pain while
     yielding few benefits for the country.

     The poll, the first since last week's bailout deal was struck, showed
     that some 54.2% of Greeks thought a national referendum should be called
     to approve the new aid deal, while only 40% thought Parliament should
     decide.

     However, Mr. Papandreou is betting that voters may approve the bailout
     package if they are forced to confront the alternative of national
     bankruptcy and a possible exit from the euro.

     Some Greek officials say the referendum question could be worded in such
     a way that voters see it as a matter of Greece's continued euro
     membership. The recent opinion poll showed 72.5% of Greeks want to stay
     in the euro zone. \"The actual meaning of the referendum is a choice
     between the euro and the drachma,\" the traditional Greek currency, a
     senior Socialist official said.

     In a bid to shore up flagging support within his own party, Mr.
     Papandreou also called for a fresh vote of confidence in his
     governmenta**just months after narrowly winning such a vote in June.

     On 10/31/11 2:22 PM, Michael Wilson wrote:

       vote of confidence and the referendum are two separate things, not
       attached. He has already employed the vote of confidence before and
       presumably could get it again. This is why it was so important last
       week or so when the MP resigned both party and seat so PASOK could put
       someone in who was indebted to the party

       The referendum is what im not sure he could win. Also will be
       interesting to see which comes first

       On 10/31/11 2:15 PM, Kristen Cooper wrote:

         Well, if it has a confidence vote attached to it and fails,
         Papandreou wouldn't necessarily be the one the EU is negotiating
         with. There are a couple different aspects here, but I don't think
         this was a move to negotiate a better deal with the EU. This is as
         about as good as deal as they could possibly hope for.

         I think with a referendum, he's essentially calling the public out -
         \"Look, this is the deal I got. Take it or leave it.\" If its
         approved, then you undermine the legitimacy of the people striking
         and protesting over the deal. If if it fails - along with an
         attached confidence vote - fails, then that means somebody else has
         to come up with a concrete alternative to the plan - which no one
         has credibly come forth with yet.

         On 10/31/11 2:45 PM, Michael Wilson wrote:

           Remember that in September there were reports (subsequently
           denied) that they would hold a referendum on the Euro. This is
           just a referendum on the new EU aid deal, but I imagine will serve
           a similar political role

           If it gets approved he has legitimacy. If it doesnt he can better
           negotiate with EU I guess. Scary to think what happens if its not
           approved...

           Greece says not considering referendum on euro

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/greece-referendum-idUSA8E7JO01720110920

           ATHENS, Sept 20 | Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:41am EDT

           (Reuters) - Greece denied a report on Tuesday that it was
           considering holding a referendum on the country's membership in
           the euro zone.

           Kathimerini daily wrote on Tuesday, citing unnamed sources, that
           Prime Minister George Papandreou was considering calling for a
           referendum on whether Greece should continue to tackle its debt
           crisis within the euro zone or by exiting the single currency.

           The government has long said it was planning a referendum on
           political reforms but has repeatedly denied that it would concern
           the country's euro membership.

           Asked if the referendum would be about staying in the euro zone,
           deputy government spokesman Angelos Tolkas said: \"No. We haven't
           discussed such an issue, definitely not.\"

           He said the government had put to parliament on Monday a bill
           aimed at allowing the country to hold referenda but without
           specifying any issue.

           \"Yesterday we tabled a bill about referenda ... but we have not
           discussed anything more than holding a referendum.\" (Reporting by
           Angeliki Koutantou; writing by Ingrid Melander; editing by Michael
           Winfrey)

           Greece may hold referendum on euro zone membership: report

              
           http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/us-greece-referendum-idUSTRE78J07W20110920
           Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:57pm EDT

           (Reuters) - Greece may hold a voter referendum on euro zone
           membership as a way to strengthen the government's hand in dealing
           with the debt crisis within the euro zone or by exiting the single
           currency, the Kathimerini English language newspaper reported on
           its website on Tuesday.

           Prime Minister George Papandreou is considering calling for the
           referendum as pressure has mounted from all sides with Greece's
           foreign creditors pushing for quicker budget cuts, while
           large-scale citizen street protests against austerity are held
           almost daily, the newspaper said, citing unnamed sources.

           A bill to be submitted in parliament, paving the way for a
           referendum, is to be discussed in the coming days, the newspaper
           added.

           For the newspaper website, see: www.ekathimerini.com

           Papandreou had earlier resisted any referendum, but now thinks
           such a vote could bring a fresh mandate for his Socialist
           government to continue with an austerity drive backed by Greece's
           international lenders, the newspaper said.

           The cabinet is reportedly split, with several ministers calling
           for drastic action including early elections at an emergency
           meeting on Sunday, the newspaper said, while others want to avoid
           a referendum or new polls.

           (Writing by Ed Layne in Singapore; Editing by Yoko Nishikawa)

           On 10/31/11 1:34 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

             Greece to hold referendum on new debt deal

             (AP) a** 10 minutes ago
             http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKv9sosbqxb_nvPl5iOA50fQfTkQ?docId=630021ce8f5d4b55b858d29d616e23c4
             ATHENS, Greece (AP) a** Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou
             says his country will hold a referendum on a new European debt
             deal reached last week.

             Papandreou gave no date on other details of proposed referendum
             on the deal that aims to seek 50 percent losses for private
             holders of Greek bonds and provide the troubled eurozone member
             with euro100 billion ($140 billion) in additional rescue loans.

             Papandreou, addressing Socialist members of parliament Monday,
             also said he would seek a vote of confidence in parliament.

             His Socialist government has seen its majority reduced to just
             three seats in parliament and its approval ratings plummet amid
             harsh austerity measures that are likely to send the country
             into a fourth year of recession in 2012.

             Papandreou calls for referendum in Greece
             Mon, Oct 31 2011, 18:18 GMT | FXstreet.com
             http://www.fxstreet.com/news/forex-news/article.aspx?storyid=5ede6cce-fa68-4d8a-a580-14808203a3ad

             FXstreet.com (CA^3rdoba) a** The Prime Minister of Greece,
             George Papandreou called for a referendum to ask whether to
             accept the new bailout or not. He said he will call for a vote
             of confidence and rejected elections.

             It was reported also that the PM mentioned that the government
             may need to nationalize some banks in order to recapitalized
             them. After a period of time the banks would be privatized.

             Papandreou Says EU Decisions Will Relieve Greece of Debt Burden
             October 31, 2011, 1:43 PM EDT
             http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-31/papandreou-says-eu-decisions-will-relieve-greece-of-debt-burden.html

             Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou
             said the country had secured a a**historic decisiona** at last
             weeka**s summit of European Union leaders that will allow Greece
             to a**look to our futurea** with less uncertainty.

             a**The EU summit decisions open up a new era for Europe and a
             new era for Greece,a** Papandreou said in comments to ruling
             party lawmakers in Athens televised on state-run Vouli TV today.
             The decisions taken by EU leaders early on Oct. 27 will reduce
             Greecea**s debt by about 100 billion euros, Papandreou said.

             To contact the reporter on this story: Marcus Bensasson in
             Athens at mbensasson@bloomberg.net

             Papandreou Says Greek Elections to be Held in 2013 as Scheduled
             October 31, 2011, 1:55 PM EDT
             http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-31/papandreou-says-greek-elections-to-be-held-in-2013-as-scheduled.html

             Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou
             said his government faced a challenge to exploit the window of
             opportunity provided by the decisions taken last week by
             European Union leaders on a second financing package for the
             country.

             Papandreou said the priority was to a**lock ina** the decisions
             of the summit. He said elections would be held as scheduled in
             2013. He spoke in Athens in comments televised live on state-run
             Vouli TV.

             On 10/31/11 1:22 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

               Greece to call referendum on new EU aid deal

               http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/31/us-greece-referendum-idUSTRE79U5PQ20111031

               ATHENS | Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:09pm EDT
               (Reuters) - The Greek government will hold a referendum on a
               new EU aid package, calling on voters to say whether they want
               to adopt it or not, Prime Minister George Papandreou said on
               Monday.

               \"We trust citizens, we believe in their judgment, we believe
               in their decision,\" he told ruling socialist party lawmakers.

               Nearly 60 percent of Greeks view Thursday's EU summit
               agreement on a new 130 billion euro bailout package as
               negative or probably negative, a survey showed on Saturday.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Director of Watch Officer Group
 STRATFOR
 221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
 Austin, TX 78701
 T: +1 512 744 4300 ex 4112
 www.STRATFOR.com

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Director of Watch Officer Group
 STRATFOR
 221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
 Austin, TX 78701
 T: +1 512 744 4300 ex 4112
 www.STRATFOR.com

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Director of Watch Officer Group
 STRATFOR
 221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
 Austin, TX 78701
 T: +1 512 744 4300 ex 4112
 www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-01 03:06:32",1,"2012-02-29 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/170037_re-more-g3-b3-greece-greece-to-call-referendum-on-new-eu-aid.html","zeihan@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
170561,"[alpha] INSIGHT - GREECE - nat gas/oil producer;
	dollar bloc? - OCH007
","   SOURCE: OCH007
   ATTRIBUTION: Old China Hand
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Well connected financial source
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: I really can't judge this one.  I know he is well
   connected in general but also speaks to some crackpots as well.
   SPECIAL HANDLING: none
   SOURCE HANDLER: Meredith/Jen

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-04 19:50:37",1,"2012-03-01 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/170561_-alpha-insight-greece-nat-gas-oil-producer-dollar-bloc.html","marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com","attach/14/14029_msg-21776-22574.png
attach/14/14030_msg-21776-22575.png"
170773,"Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta conflict in
	context
","   He has long been pegged as a Zeta supporter in the Mexican Media and even
   the LA Times. There are videos all over Youtube that say he's a crook.
    
   From: Marko Primorac <marko.primorac@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 17:25:49 -0500 (CDT)
   To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict in context
   Great stuff -- I guess one thing you may want to maybe that no legal
   action has been taken against Rosario Torres to date over the Anonymous
   posting.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Matt Mawhinney\" <matt.mawhinney@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 5:16:18 PM
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict        in context

   One comment in blue. 

   On 11/1/11 4:51 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     also i don't think widget is the appropriate term - script maybe?
     protocol? kevin might actually know the technical term.

     On 11/1/11 4:48 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

       I think it might be good to mention what was said in the dispatch
       discussion: that this is a brand new type of cyber attack against
       cartels, exposing rather than intel collection and disruption, which
       is what government agencies do.

       On 11/1/11 1:11 PM, scott stewart wrote:

          Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta Conflict in Context

         On Oct. 31, the online activist collective Anonymous posted a
         message to the internet  in which it stated that it was continuing
         with its campaign against the Mexican criminal cartels and their
         governmentsupporters despite the inherent danger.

          

         The messageurged inexperienced activists who might not be practicing
         proper online security measures to abstain from participating. It
         also urged individuals associated with Anonymous to not conduct
         physical pamphlet drops, participate in protests, wear or purchase
         Guy Fawkes masks, or use Guy Fawkes imagery in their internet or
         physical world activities.  Guy Fawkes was British Catholic
         conspirator who was involved in a plot to bomb the British
         Parliament in 1605, and who has become somewhat of an Anarchist icon
         in the United Kingdom. The British celebrate Guy Fawkes Day each
         year on Nov. 5, and the day has special meaning for the anarchists. 
         Not incorrect but the use of the Guy Fawkes mask as the face of Anon
         stems from the graphic novel and subsequent Hollywood movie V for
         Vendetta.

          

         It is not coincidental then, that in their Oct. 6 video, Anonymous
         set Nov. 5 as the deadline for Los Zetas to release the Anonymous
         associate who was allegedly kidnapped in Veracruz by Los Zetas. The
         Anonymous associate was reportedly abducted during an Anonymous
         leaflet campaign called Operation Paperstorm.

          

         The Oct. 31message acknowledged that the operation against Los
         Zetas, dubbed \"# OpCartel\" I am not sure if the hashtag is not just
         the twitter handle, should be checked is dangerous and noted that
         the collective would be assembling a hand-picked group of known and
         trusted associates to participate in a special task force to execute
         the operation. It asked supporters to use a software widget they had
         developed in order to anonymously pass information pertaining to
         drug trafficking to the task force, which will then distribute it. 

          

         With Nov. 5, approaching, and at least some elements of Anonymous
         not backing down on their threats to Los Zetas, we thought it would
         be useful to provide some context to the present conflict between
         Anonymous and Los Zetas and to also address some of its potential
         implications.

          

         Context

          

         First it issignificant to understand that the epicenter of this
         event is Veracruz, which  has been a very busy place over the past
         few months in terms of Mexico's cartel wars. The port city also
         serves as a critical transportation hub for the narcotics smuggling
         activities of the Los Zetas cartel. Because of this, Stratfor has
         identified Veracruz as [link
         http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111024-mexican-drug-war-update-polarization-continues
         ] a bellweather city thatwill help determine the trajectory of the
         Los Zetas cartel in the coming months. 

          

         One of the big recent developments in Veracruz was the Sinaloa
         cartel's push into the Zeta stronghold using the [link
         http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-mexico-security-memo-zetas-defensive-veracruz
         ] Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG), which using the name
         Matazetas (Zeta killers) conducted some high-profile body dumps of
         over 50 alleged low-level Zeta operatives on Sept. 20 and 22.  On
         Oct. 25, Mexican Marines arrested Carlos Arturo Pitalua-Carillo, \"El
         Bam Bam,\" who was Los Zetas plaza boss in Veracruz.  This means that
         in Veracruz at the present time, Los Zetas are feeling pressure from
         both the Government of Mexico and the CJNG.

          

         Into this dynamic flow, we had the Anonymous internet collective
         begin to take action in Veracruz in August. In response to what
         Anonymous saw as the state of Veracruz supporting the Los Zetas
         cartel, they launched Operation Paperstorm, in which activists
         associated with the Anonymous collective distributed leaflets
         throughout Veracruz claiming the state government supports Los
         Zetas.  They conducted major leaflet distributions on Aug. 13, 20,
         and 29. They also released videos to the internet on Aug. 26 and 29,
         condemning the State of Veracruz. (According to the Oct. 6 Anonymous
         video, Los Zetas allegedly kidnapped one of the activists involved
         in Operation Paperstorm.)

          

         Activities outside of Veracruz have also played a part in setting
         the stage. On Sept. 13, two people were tortured and killed and
         their bodies hung from a pedestrianoverpass in Nuevo Laredo,
         Tamaulipas state.  Signs left with the bodies signified that Los
         Zetas had killed the pair because they had posted information
         pertaining to Los Zetas on blogs that specialize in reporting on the
         Mexican cartels. On Sept 26, the body of Marisol Macias Casteneda
         was found beheaded in a park in Nuevo Laredo.   Macias who worked
         for a local newspaper allegedly posted on cartel blogs using the
         nickname \"Laredo Girl.\" A message found with her body noted that she
         was killed by Los Zetas due to her online activities.

          

         Following the death of Laredo Girl, Anonymous claimed responsibility
         for a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack conducted against
         the official website of the state of Veracruz. Although she was
         killed by Los Zetas in Nuevo Laredo Tamaulipas, Anonymous said their
         attack on the Veracruz state website was because of the death of
         Laredo Girl.

          

         It is also important to recognize that Anonymous was also unhappy
         with the State of Veracruz over the decision of the state to
         prosecute two individuals who had posted false kidnapping reports on
         Twitter on Aug. 25. The false reports alleged that a group of
         children had been abducted from a Veracruz school and the panic
         caused by the report allegedly resulted in some two dozen traffic
         accidents as terrified parents rushed to the school to check o n
         their children. The so-called \"twitter terrorists\" were initially
         charged with offenses that could have carried a 30-year sentence.
         Anonymous, which has absolute freedom of speech on the internet as
         one of its foundational principles, took umbrage with this stiff
         penalty for the Twitter case - especially because it stood in stark
         contrast with the impunity many cartel figures enjoy in Mexico. 

          

          

         Following the Oct. 6 release of the video in which Anonymous
         threatened Los Zetas if they did not release the kidnapped anonymous
         activist, Stratfor began to focus on the story, and in light of the
         approaching Nov. 5 deadline, decided to publish an, [link
         http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111028-mexicos-cartels-draw-online-activists-ire
         ] analysis of the topic, which was released on Oct. 28.  

          

         Following the release of our analysis, the topic has received a
         great deal of media coverage. This publicity has generated a very
         interesting response from Anonymous -- one that emphasizes the fast
         that it is a collective of people and not an organization.  As some
         Anonymousactivists were backing off the issue, erasing online user
         accounts, suggesting that the operation against Los Zetas had been a
         hoax and claiming that no activist had been kidnapped, other
         activists suggested that the campaign should be suspended. Still
         other activists became more strident and determined in their posts,
         urging that the campaign continue. Since Anonymous is a collective,
         activists can pick and choose which actions they will participate
         in. that means in his case that those activists who want to refrain
         from the campaign will and those who want to participate will
         continue it.

          

         This will to continue was manifested on Oct. 29, the personal
         website of Gustavo RosarioTorres, the former attorney general of the
         Mexican state of Tobasco was hacked and defaced with a message from
         Anonymous Mexico stating that Rosario was aZeta -  It was also
         reflected in the tone of the Oct. 31 message. Some activists
         associated with Anonymous clearly feel compelled to continue with
         the campaign due to the outpouring of public support they received
         in the wake of the media coverage. According to the Oct 31. Video
         statement:

          

         \"we received many expressions of support and solidarity as well as
         the voices of people crying for help. We must remember that we are
         on the side of the people, and we cannot let down the people,
         especially in critical moments like the one they currently live in.\"

          

         We therefore anticipate that some Anonymous activists will continue
         the campaign. We also believe that Los Zetas will respond.

          

         Revenge of the Sith (Yes Kamran, I agree with Isa that Star Wars is
         better than Star Trek)  Star Wars III-IV are, the rest don't exist
         in my book.

          

         The variouscartel groups in Mexico have long used the internet as a
         place to trumpet their triumphs on the battlefield and to taunt and
         even degrade their enemies. The cartels have posted videos of them
         torturing, executing and beheading members of opposing cartels. They
         also frequently monitor narco blogs and sometimeseven post on them. 
         As demonstrated by the blogger killings in Nuevo Laredo in
         September, Los Zetas appear to possess at least some rudimentary
         capability to trace online activity to people in thephysical world.
         It is not known if they employ their own team of dedicated cyber
         experts or if they rely on sources within the Mexican government -
         although the most likely answer is probably a little of both. 

          

          

         In past Anonymous actions, like the Dec. 2010 attack against Pay Pal
         following the Wikileaks case, governments in the U.S. and the UK
         have arrested numerous individuals associated with Anonymous who
         allegedly participated in the attack. In June 2011, Turkey arrested
         dozens of activists associated with Anonymousactions conducted
         against the Turkish government for its efforts to establish a
         national internet filtering system.

          

         Los Zetas, like the other Mexican cartels, do not take affronts
         lightly. Even if Anonymous is not able to provide information that
         will damage Los Zetas smuggling operations, the very fact that this
         group has decided to challenge Los Zetas publicly will result in
         some sort of response. The big question is: do theypossess the
         capability to effectively trace the organizers of the
         Anonymousaction against them?

          

         One problem with an entity such as Anonymous is that it is
         intentionally amorphous - it is also as transnational as the
         internet, and it would not be surprising if many of those chosen to
         participate in the operation against Los Zetas are located outside
         of Mexico in locations such as the U.S. and Europe which are outside
         the immediate reach of Los Zetas.

          

         But the amorphous nature of Anonymous can also cut the other way. 
         If Los Zetas pick up and execute some random patrons from an
         internet cafe, behead them and place Guy Fawkesmasks on their heads,
         it will be very difficult to prove that they were not  associated
         with  Anonymous.  As Anonymous noted in their Oct. 31 video, this is
         dangerous business.

          

          

         The Big Picture

          

         One thing to watch as the Anonymous operation continues is the way
         in which the Mexican public reacts. Many people in the Mexican
         middle and upper classes have been deeply affected by the criminal
         cartels and theviolence the practice. We talk to many people in
         Mexico who are fearful of being kidnapped. In many communities,
         especially places like Juarez, Torreon, Monterrey and Veracruz,
         businessmen are being caught in a terrible bind. On one hand, they
         are receiving ever-increasing extortion demands from the cartels,
         while at the same time their business revenues are dwindling because
         people are afraid to go out due to the violence associated with
         those same cartels. This is forcing many businessmen out of
         business. It is also creating a great deal of frustration and
         resentment.

          

         At the same time, Mexico has become one of the most dangerous
         countries in the world for journalists, and many media companies
         practice heavy self-censorship to protect themselves. In the wake of
         the September blogger killings some of the narco blogs, like Blog
         del Narco, have also exhibited strong signs of fear inspired
         self-censorship.   This means that the legitimate press is not able
         to be of any real aid to the Mexican people.

          

         Mexican citizens are also frustrated with their government, which is
         well-known for corruption.  This is the sentiment feeding Anonymous'
         original campaign in Veracruz.  This frustration has lead some
         people to begin to talk about

         vigilante groups to fight the cartels - though that has been
         attempted before in Mexico and as we saw in the case of [link
         http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090714_mexico_la_familia_michoacana_expands_its_attacks
         ] La Familia MichoacA!n, which originally began as such a vigilante
         group, vigilantism frequently does not end well.

          

         This is where Anonymous may fit in. With Mexican citizens unable to
         rely on their government, the media or even armed vigilante groups
         for assistance, they may embrace Anonymous and come to view its form
         of cyber vigilantism as an outlet for their frustration -- and a
         safe way to pass oninformation pertaining to cartel activities.  If
         this occurs, we may see people not just in Veracruz and other Zeta
         controlled areas providing information to Anonymous, but citizens
         from all over the country.

          

         Also, in the same way that cartels leak information togovernments in
         an effort to use them as weapons against their rivals, we could also
         very well see groups such as the Sinaloa cartel provide information
         on Los Zetas to Anonymous. This of course would provide even more
         reason for Los Zetas to strike out against the activist collective.
         Eventually Anonymous could turn their sites on the other cartels. I
         wonder if the other cartels are thinking of Anonymous more as a
         potential threat/annoyance or a way to weaken the Zetas. Probably  a
         little bit of both at this point.

          

         If the Anonymous information campaign does indeed take off, and if
         Anonymous is attacked by Los Zetas, the activists could resort to
         releasing sensitive information to the U.S. Drug Enforcement
         Administration in an attempt to damage Los Zetas. This would be an
         incredible irony in light of the way Anonymous has viewed itself as
         an opponent of the U.S. government in cases like Wikileaks. 

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Matt Mawhinney
 ADP
 STRATFOR
 221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
 Austin, TX 78701
 T: 512.744.4300 A| M: 267.972.2609 A| F: 512.744.4334
 www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-02 01:51:45",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/170773_re-s-weekly-for-comment-placing-the-anonymous-vs-zeta.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
170777,"Re: G3/B3* - GREECE - Papa speech: rejects snap elections,
	doesn't resign	and still defends referendum
","   Its not whether or not its a good idea. Its whether any government can
   govern if it capitulates to the eu without a referendum. When the cost
   hits home and there was neither an election nor a referendum the public
   could destroy the political elite and make greece ungovernable.

   This is an agonizing deal for the public. Papa is desperately searching
   for a way to get the public buy in without suspension of aid by the eu.

   He is in a terrible spot and I see no exit for him. He will be crushed by
   default now or by an enraged public in a few weeks.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Sender: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 19:03:46 -0500 (CDT)
   To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: G3/B3* - GREECE - Papa speech: rejects snap elections,
   doesn't resign and still defends referendum
   But the original point is that he maintains the referendum was a good
   idea... for him. No contest on it being irrelevant at this point.

   Sent from my iPhone
   On Nov 4, 2011, at 19:01, Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   wrote:

     I don't think the referendum idea came from extraneous forces but was a
     misguided attempt to discharge responsibility. As you said, the
     pressures on P are EU and domestic, the referendum came from neither.
     Therefore, id there is one thing he knows he will do it's NOT having a
     referendum.

     Sent from my iPhone
     On Nov 4, 2011, at 18:56, \"George Friedman\"
     <friedman@att.blackberry.net> wrote:

       He doesn't know what he will do. He is riding the tiger caught between
       the eu leadership and the public. Pay no attention to what he wants
       and pay attention to the forces on him. We've seen him whirling like a
       dervish for days.

       Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
       Sender: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
       Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 18:43:56 -0500 (CDT)
       To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
       ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
       Subject: Re: G3/B3* - GREECE - Papa speech: rejects snap elections,
       doesn't resign and still defends referendum
       If Peter meant that Papa still thinks the referendum was the best idea
       I agree with him. If he means papa is still thinking of doing it in
       the future I'm with Kristen.
       Sent from my iPhone
       On Nov 4, 2011, at 17:58, Kristen Cooper <kristen.cooper@stratfor.com>
       wrote:

         I don't think that is what he said. He spent most the time
         explaining why he called it in the first place but not still having
         it.

         Kristen Cooper
         512.619.9414
         On Nov 4, 2011, at 18:53, Peter Zeihan <zeihan@stratfor.com> wrote:

           I mean papa is still saying that's his plan

           On Nov 4, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Kristen Cooper
           <kristen.cooper@stratfor.com> wrote:

             I really don't think the referendum is still on. He gave that up
             awhile ago. There is NO way he would win a confidence vote if
             people thought he was still going to call a referendum
             On Nov 4, 2011, at 6:23 PM, Peter Zeihan wrote:

               Still on the referendum
               Awesome
               On Nov 4, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Marc Lanthemann
               <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com> wrote:

                 nothing exciting or historic

                 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8846201/Debt-crisis-live.html

                 21.58 Papandreou closes his speech, rejecting talk of snap
                 elections:

                 We need to be level-headed. We are managing a crisis. We
                 need to strengthen democratic institutions or we will wound
                 democracy. We must be organised and Greece must be governed
                 without interuption. We require level-headedness, not
                 frenzy. Political parties which are going to be
                 collaborating cannot be a government on a status quo that is
                 dying.

                 What i want is to operate for today and tomorrow but not for
                 yesterday. Let's go for the citizens of Greece, for a
                 country that can be proud and dignified. I want to remind
                 foreign leaders that they should have belief in the Greek
                 people. This country is made of hard stuff and the country
                 does what it is meant to do.

                 I ask for a vote of confidence so our country has a
                 government to take necessary steps of security over the next
                 few months. The country supercedes all of us. United, we can
                 go forward.

                 21.43 More humble talk from Mr Papandreou:
                 I did not see politics as profession. I can contribute to
                 general good. When I am under criticism i want to send a
                 clear message, I hope my actions can bring about a different
                 culture in political life of the country and media and
                 citizens.

                 21.41 He opens the door for a coalition government to be
                 formed.

                 21.40 Mr Papandreou insists he is not \"clinging to power\".
                 He says he is not interested in that. The floor claps.

                 21.37 More from Mr Papandreou:

                 I broke a taboo with the referendum [...] Going against the
                 norm was for the benefit of Greece. We do have differences,
                 but we also see priorities of countries and these can best
                 be served with collaborations.
                 A transitional government would mean catastrophe. This
                 should not happen. Snap elections would mean the bail-out
                 would be up in the air.

                 21.35 He says early elections would be a \"catastrophe\".

                 21.29 Mr Papandreou continues:
                 It is in the interest of the Greek nation, this bailout. I
                 am curious how all oppositions oppose this. What did they
                 fear? Rejection by greek people of bailout?
                 [The referendum] was a democratic decision which shook the
                 markets.
                 But we the Greek nation exists which finally must decide.
                 Many on the right and on the left said we were bothering our
                 partners, and therefore there was hypocracy abound.
                 [So] yes financial markets exist, but first of all people
                 exist.

                 21.17 Mr Papandreou asks Parliament for greater
                 collaboration and cooperation. He says:
                 The bailout allows us to write-off a large part of our debt
                 in the next few months [it] permits us to give the energy to
                 build a Greece of growth.

                 Greek people, There is no problem with your deposits in the
                 banks because of the bailout. They are even more guaranteed
                 with us in the eurozone.

                 [...] This bailout is tremendous opportunity to rebuild
                 country on new foundations.

                 Papandreou steps up to address the Greek parliament on
                 Fridsy (Photo: AP)

                 21.12 There are shades of the British Commons as George
                 Papandreou finally takes the mic. He blames the previous
                 government for multiplying the debt and the a**tragic
                 mistakesa** that have been made. He adds:
                 We are living through a new trial, and some of us wish to
                 forget what has happened in the past.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-05 01:09:25",1,"2012-02-29 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/170777_re-g3-b3-greece-papa-speech-rejects-snap-elections-doesn-t.html","friedman@att.blackberry.net","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
170819,"Re: G3/B3* - GREECE - Papa speech: rejects snap elections,
	doesn't resign	and still defends referendum
","   But then why didn't we see a more widespread public support for the
   referendum? If anything the Greeks were relieved to not have to vote on
   the issue. 
   To expand on a popular metaphor from the FT, the Greeks know they're sick,
   don't want the medicine but also no one  wants to be the one to refuse it.
   Agree that P is screwed anyway.
   Sent from my iPhone
   On Nov 4, 2011, at 19:09, \"George Friedman\" <friedman@att.blackberry.net>
   wrote:

     Its not whether or not its a good idea. Its whether any government can
     govern if it capitulates to the eu without a referendum. When the cost
     hits home and there was neither an election nor a referendum the public
     could destroy the political elite and make greece ungovernable.

     This is an agonizing deal for the public. Papa is desperately searching
     for a way to get the public buy in without suspension of aid by the eu.

     He is in a terrible spot and I see no exit for him. He will be crushed
     by default now or by an enraged public in a few weeks.

     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
     Sender: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
     Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 19:03:46 -0500 (CDT)
     To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
     ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Re: G3/B3* - GREECE - Papa speech: rejects snap elections,
     doesn't resign and still defends referendum
     But the original point is that he maintains the referendum was a good
     idea... for him. No contest on it being irrelevant at this point.

     Sent from my iPhone
     On Nov 4, 2011, at 19:01, Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
     wrote:

       I don't think the referendum idea came from extraneous forces but was
       a misguided attempt to discharge responsibility. As you said, the
       pressures on P are EU and domestic, the referendum came from neither.
       Therefore, id there is one thing he knows he will do it's NOT having a
       referendum.

       Sent from my iPhone
       On Nov 4, 2011, at 18:56, \"George Friedman\"
       <friedman@att.blackberry.net> wrote:

         He doesn't know what he will do. He is riding the tiger caught
         between the eu leadership and the public. Pay no attention to what
         he wants and pay attention to the forces on him. We've seen him
         whirling like a dervish for days.

         Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
         Sender: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
         Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 18:43:56 -0500 (CDT)
         To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
         ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
         Subject: Re: G3/B3* - GREECE - Papa speech: rejects snap elections,
         doesn't resign and still defends referendum
         If Peter meant that Papa still thinks the referendum was the best
         idea I agree with him. If he means papa is still thinking of doing
         it in the future I'm with Kristen.
         Sent from my iPhone
         On Nov 4, 2011, at 17:58, Kristen Cooper
         <kristen.cooper@stratfor.com> wrote:

           I don't think that is what he said. He spent most the time
           explaining why he called it in the first place but not still
           having it.

           Kristen Cooper
           512.619.9414
           On Nov 4, 2011, at 18:53, Peter Zeihan <zeihan@stratfor.com>
           wrote:

             I mean papa is still saying that's his plan

             On Nov 4, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Kristen Cooper
             <kristen.cooper@stratfor.com> wrote:

               I really don't think the referendum is still on. He gave that
               up awhile ago. There is NO way he would win a confidence vote
               if people thought he was still going to call a referendum
               On Nov 4, 2011, at 6:23 PM, Peter Zeihan wrote:

                 Still on the referendum
                 Awesome
                 On Nov 4, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Marc Lanthemann
                 <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com> wrote:

                   nothing exciting or historic

                   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8846201/Debt-crisis-live.html

                   21.58 Papandreou closes his speech, rejecting talk of snap
                   elections:

                   We need to be level-headed. We are managing a crisis. We
                   need to strengthen democratic institutions or we will
                   wound democracy. We must be organised and Greece must be
                   governed without interuption. We require level-headedness,
                   not frenzy. Political parties which are going to be
                   collaborating cannot be a government on a status quo that
                   is dying.

                   What i want is to operate for today and tomorrow but not
                   for yesterday. Let's go for the citizens of Greece, for a
                   country that can be proud and dignified. I want to remind
                   foreign leaders that they should have belief in the Greek
                   people. This country is made of hard stuff and the country
                   does what it is meant to do.

                   I ask for a vote of confidence so our country has a
                   government to take necessary steps of security over the
                   next few months. The country supercedes all of us. United,
                   we can go forward.

                   21.43 More humble talk from Mr Papandreou:
                   I did not see politics as profession. I can contribute to
                   general good. When I am under criticism i want to send a
                   clear message, I hope my actions can bring about a
                   different culture in political life of the country and
                   media and citizens.

                   21.41 He opens the door for a coalition government to be
                   formed.

                   21.40 Mr Papandreou insists he is not \"clinging to power\".
                   He says he is not interested in that. The floor claps.

                   21.37 More from Mr Papandreou:

                   I broke a taboo with the referendum [...] Going against
                   the norm was for the benefit of Greece. We do have
                   differences, but we also see priorities of countries and
                   these can best be served with collaborations.
                   A transitional government would mean catastrophe. This
                   should not happen. Snap elections would mean the bail-out
                   would be up in the air.

                   21.35 He says early elections would be a \"catastrophe\".

                   21.29 Mr Papandreou continues:
                   It is in the interest of the Greek nation, this bailout. I
                   am curious how all oppositions oppose this. What did they
                   fear? Rejection by greek people of bailout?
                   [The referendum] was a democratic decision which shook the
                   markets.
                   But we the Greek nation exists which finally must decide.
                   Many on the right and on the left said we were bothering
                   our partners, and therefore there was hypocracy abound.
                   [So] yes financial markets exist, but first of all people
                   exist.

                   21.17 Mr Papandreou asks Parliament for greater
                   collaboration and cooperation. He says:
                   The bailout allows us to write-off a large part of our
                   debt in the next few months [it] permits us to give the
                   energy to build a Greece of growth.

                   Greek people, There is no problem with your deposits in
                   the banks because of the bailout. They are even more
                   guaranteed with us in the eurozone.

                   [...] This bailout is tremendous opportunity to rebuild
                   country on new foundations.

                   Papandreou steps up to address the Greek parliament on
                   Fridsy (Photo: AP)

                   21.12 There are shades of the British Commons as George
                   Papandreou finally takes the mic. He blames the previous
                   government for multiplying the debt and the a**tragic
                   mistakesa** that have been made. He adds:
                   We are living through a new trial, and some of us wish to
                   forget what has happened in the past.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-05 01:20:12",1,"2012-02-29 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/170819_re-g3-b3-greece-papa-speech-rejects-snap-elections-doesn-t.html","marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com,friedman@att.blackberry.net",""
171808,"Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta conflict
	in context
","   Just to build on my last comment - and I think this should be included in
   the piece - the cartels could just as easily try to intimidate would be
   sources ratting to anonymous as intimidate bloggers. Imagine if, after
   anonymous publishes a few juicy tidbits, Zetas hang a few headless bodies
   from a bridge accusing them of contributing to anonymous? True or not,
   cartels can intimidate both sides of the information flow and the sources
   may be more vulnerable than anonymous themselves.

   Still think a discussion of Anonymous and source handling would be pretty
   cool.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Ben West\" <ben.west@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 5:42:42 PM
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict        in context

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 4:45:43 PM
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict        in context

   On 11/1/11 1:11 PM, scott stewart wrote:

      Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta Conflict in Context

     On Oct. 31, the online activist collective Anonymous posted a message to
     the internet  in which it stated that it was continuing with its
     campaign against the Mexican criminal cartels and their
     governmentsupporters despite the inherent danger.

      

     The messageurged inexperienced activists who might not be practicing
     proper online security measures to abstain from participating. It also
     urged individuals associated with Anonymous to not conduct physical
     pamphlet drops, participate in protests, wear or purchase Guy Fawkes
     masks, or use Guy Fawkes imagery in their internet or physical world
     activities.[Is this universally or just in Mexico?  The former points to
     problems with LE cracking down on them, the latter specifically to
     cartel retribution]  Guy Fawkes was British Catholic conspirator who was
     involved in a plot to bomb the British Parliament in 1605, and who has
     become somewhat of an Anarchist icon in the United Kingdom. The British
     celebrate Guy Fawkes Day each year on Nov. 5, and the day has special
     meaning for the anarchists.  

      

     It is not coincidental then, that in their Oct. 6 video, Anonymous set
     Nov. 5 as the deadline for Los Zetas to release the Anonymous associate
     who was allegedly kidnapped in Veracruz by Los Zetas. The Anonymous
     associate was reportedly abducted during an Anonymous leaflet campaign
     called Operation Paperstorm.

      

     The Oct. 31message acknowledged that the operation against Los Zetas,
     dubbed a**# OpCartela** is dangerous and noted that the collective would
     be assembling a hand-picked group of known and trusted associates to
     participate in a special task force to execute the operation.[hahahaha,
     this says something about leadership] It asked supporters to use a
     software widget[WC. is this the correct term?] they had developed in
     order to anonymously pass information pertaining to drug trafficking to
     the task force, which will then distribute it. 

      

     With Nov. 5, approaching, and at least some elements of Anonymous not
     backing down on their threats to Los Zetas, we thought it would be
     useful to provide some context to the present conflict between Anonymous
     and Los Zetas and to also address some of its potential implications.

      

     Context

      

     First it issignificant to understand that the physical? geographic?
     epicenter of this event is Veracruz, which  has been a very busy place
     over the past few months in terms of Mexicoa**s cartel wars. The port
     city also serves as a critical transportation hub for the narcotics
     smuggling activities of the Los Zetas cartel. Because of this, Stratfor
     has identified Veracruz as [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111024-mexican-drug-war-update-polarization-continues
     ] a bellweather city thatwill help determine the trajectory of the Los
     Zetas cartel in the coming months. 

      

     One of the big recent developments in Veracruz was the Sinaloa
     cartela**s push into the Zeta stronghold using the [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-mexico-security-memo-zetas-defensive-veracruz
     ] Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG), which using the name
     Matazetas (Zeta killers) conducted some high-profile body dumps of over
     50 alleged low-level Zeta operatives on Sept. 20 and 22.  On Oct. 25,
     Mexican Marines arrested Carlos Arturo Pitalua-Carillo, a**El Bam
     Bam,a** who was Los Zetas plaza boss in Veracruz.  This means that in
     Veracruz at the present time, Los Zetas are feeling pressure from both
     the Government of Mexico and the CJNG.

      

     Into this dynamic flow, we had the Anonymous internet collective begin
     to take action in Veracruz in August. In response to what Anonymous saw
     as the state of Veracruz supporting the Los Zetas cartel, they launched
     Operation Paperstorm, in which activists who associated themselves with
     the Anonymous collective distributed leaflets throughout Veracruz
     claiming the state government supports Los Zetas.  They conducted major
     leaflet distributions on Aug. 13, 20, and 29. They also released videos
     to the internet on Aug. 26 and 29, condemning the State of Veracruz.
     (According to the Oct. 6 Anonymous video, Los Zetas allegedly kidnapped
     one of the activists involved in Operation Paperstorm.)

      

     Activities outside of Veracruz have also played a part in setting the
     stage. On Sept. 13, two people were tortured and killed and their bodies
     hung from a pedestrianoverpass in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas state.  Signs
     left with the bodies signified that Los Zetas had killed the pair
     because they had posted information pertaining to Los Zetas on blogs
     that specialize in reporting on the Mexican cartels. On Sept 26, the
     body of Marisol Macias Casteneda was found beheaded in a park in Nuevo
     Laredo.   Macias who worked for a local newspaper allegedly posted on
     cartel blogs using the nickname a**Laredo Girl.a** A message found with
     her body noted that she was killed by Los Zetas due to her online
     activities.

      

     Following the death of Laredo Girl, Anonymous claimed responsibility for
     a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack conducted against the
     official website of the state of Veracruz. Although she was killed by
     Los Zetas in Nuevo Laredo Tamaulipas, Anonymous said their attack on the
     Veracruz state website was because of the death of Laredo Girl. [can you
     attempt to explain why they linked it with veracruz?]

      

     It is also important to recognize that some members of Anonymous [again
     I hate referring to Anonymous as one entity] was also unhappy with the
     State of Veracruz over the decision of the state to prosecute two
     individuals who had posted false kidnapping reports on Twitter on Aug.
     25. The false reports alleged that a group of children had been abducted
     from a Veracruz school and the panic caused by the report allegedly
     resulted in some two dozen traffic accidents as terrified parents rushed
     to the school to check o n their children. The so-called a**twitter
     terroristsa** were initially charged with offenses that could have
     carried a 30-year sentence. Those involved in this campaign from
     Anonymous, which claims absolute freedom of speech on the internet as
     one of its foundational principles, took umbrage with this stiff penalty
     for the Twitter case a** especially because it stood in stark contrast
     with the impunity many cartel figures enjoy in Mexico. 

      

      

     Following the Oct. 6 release of the video in which Anonymous threatened
     Los Zetas if they did not release the kidnapped anonymous activist,
     Stratfor began to focus on the story, and in light of the approaching
     Nov. 5 deadline, decided to publish an, [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111028-mexicos-cartels-draw-online-activists-ire
     ] analysis of the topic, which was released on Oct. 28.  

      

     Following the release of our analysis, the topic has received a great
     deal of media coverage. This publicity has generated a very interesting
     response from Anonymous -- one that emphasizes the fast that it is a
     collective of people and not an organization.  As some
     Anonymousactivists were backing off the issue, erasing online user
     accounts[does this mean accounts of people in support of the attack?],
     suggesting that the operation against Los Zetas had been a hoax and
     claiming that no activist had been kidnapped, other activists suggested
     that the campaign should be suspended. Still other activists became more
     strident and determined in their posts, urging that the campaign
     continue. Since Anonymous is a collective, activists can pick and choose
     which actions they will participate in. that means in his case that
     those activists who want to refrain from the campaign will and those who
     want to participate will continue it.  [i see how this paragraph fits
     into your analysis the way you have it written, but I think it might go
     better at the front.  You could use the 'anonymous discussion' as a
     trigger, explain it's \"collective\" qualities and then go into the rest
     of the analysis.  This way I feel much less bad about how we refer to
     'anonymous']

      

     This will to continue was manifested[something is off in the previous
     part of the sentence] on Oct. 29, the personal website of Gustavo
     RosarioTorres, the former attorney general of the Mexican state of
     Tobasco was hacked and defaced with a message from Anonymous Mexico
     stating that Rosario was aZeta.  It was also reflected in the tone of
     the Oct. 31 message. Some activists associated with Anonymous clearly
     feel compelled to continue with the campaign due to the outpouring[WC. 
     Did they really get an outpouring? seemed like they got a lot of
     criticism and also support for going against the cartels] of public
     support they received in the wake of the media coverage. According to
     the Oct 31. Video statement: (did we see specific examples of \"public
     support\" or are we just going off of the youtube statement CLAIMING that
     they got lots of support?)

      

     a**we received many expressions of support and solidarity as well as the
     voices of people crying for help. We must remember that we are on the
     side of the people, and we cannot let down the people, especially in
     critical moments like the one they currently live in.a**

      

     We therefore anticipate that some Anonymous activists will continue the
     campaign. We also believe that Los Zetas will respond.

      

     Revenge of the Sith (Yes Kamran, I agree with Isa that Star Wars is
     better than Star Trek. What's Star Trek?) 

      

     The variouscartel groups in Mexico have long used the internet as a
     place to trumpet their triumphs on the battlefield and to taunt and even
     degrade their enemies. The cartels have posted videos of them torturing,
     executing and beheading members of opposing cartels. They also
     frequently monitor narco blogs and sometimeseven post on them.  As
     demonstrated by the blogger killings in Nuevo Laredo in September, Los
     Zetas appear to possess at least some rudimentary capability to trace
     online activity to people in thephysical world. It is not known if they
     employ their own team of dedicated cyber experts or if they rely on
     sources within the Mexican government a** although the most likely
     answer is probably a little of both.  [what about just old-fashioned
     human intelligence?  Many people discuss blogger identities both online
     and offline, something they could've picked up without network-based
     forensics.  'My brother blogs about...' and on from there.  Or by
     tracing the information the blogger had in the real world, and
     eventually getting back to the blogger]

   Tristan was talking about how the cartels were even kidnapping computer
   science students and forcing them to track anonymous down. Need to check
   with him on specifics though

      

      

     In past Anonymous actions, like the Dec. 2010 attack against Pay Pal
     following the Wikileaks case, governments in the U.S. and the UK have
     arrested numerous individuals associated with Anonymous who allegedly
     participated in the attack. In June 2011, Turkey arrested dozens of
     activists associated with Anonymousactions conducted against the Turkish
     government for its efforts to establish a national internet filtering
     system. [Need something to make a point here, maybe something like:] 
     The reality is that there is no such thing as anonymity, on the internet
     or otherwise.  Any action leaves some trail, whether digitial or
     physical.  In the same way that hackers from Anonymous develop exploits
     to access confidential information, law enforcement agencies and even
     cartels could get around encryption, examine patterns of activity and
     investigate leads that in the end identify a real person behind a
     computer. 

      

     Los Zetas, like the other Mexican cartels, do not take affronts lightly.
     Even if Anonymous is not able to provide information that will damage
     Los Zetas smuggling operations, the very fact that this group has
     decided to challenge Los Zetas publicly will result in some sort of
     response. The big question is: do theypossess the capability to
     effectively trace the organizers of the Anonymousaction against them?

      

     One problem with an entity such as Anonymous is that it is intentionally
     amorphous a** it is also as transnational as the internet, and it would
     not be surprising if many of those chosen to participate in the
     operation against Los Zetas are located outside of Mexico in locations
     such as the U.S. and Europe which are outside the immediate reach of Los
     Zetas.(the US is not out of reach, at least not on the border:
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111005-mexico-security-memo-defining-cross-border-violence)

      

     But the amorphous nature of Anonymous can also cut the other way.  If
     Los Zetas pick up and execute some random patrons from an internet cafe,
     behead them and place Guy Fawkesmasks on their heads, it will be very
     difficult to prove that they were not  associated with  Anonymous.  As
     Anonymous noted in their Oct. 31 video, this is dangerous business.(it
     would certainly be within the cartel's capacity to kill innocents and
     blame anonymous in the attempt to intimidate them into stopping their
     activity)

      

      

     The Big Picture

      

     One thing to watch as the Anonymous operation continues is the way in
     which the Mexican public reacts. Many people in the Mexican middle and
     upper classes have been deeply affected by the criminal cartels and
     theviolence the practice. We talk to many people in Mexico who are
     fearful of being kidnapped. In many communities, especially places like
     Juarez, Torreon, Monterrey and Veracruz, businessmen are being caught in
     a terrible bind. On one hand, they are receiving ever-increasing
     extortion demands from the cartels, while at the same time their
     business revenues are dwindling because people are afraid to go out due
     to the violence associated with those same cartels. This is forcing many
     businessmen[enterprises?] out of business. It is also creating a great
     deal of frustration and resentment.

      

     At the same time, Mexico has become one of the most dangerous countries
     in the world for journalists, and many media organizations practice
     heavy self-censorship to protect themselves. In the wake of the
     September blogger killings some of the narco blogs, like Blog del Narco,
     have also exhibited strong signs of fear inspired self-censorship.  
     This means that the legitimate press is not able to be of any real aid
     to the Mexican people.

      

     Mexican citizens are also frustrated with their government, which is
     well-known for corruption.  This is the sentiment feeding Anonymousa**
     original campaign in Veracruz.  This frustration has lead some people to
     begin to talk about

     vigilante groups to fight the cartels a** though that has been attempted
     before in Mexico and as we saw in the case of [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090714_mexico_la_familia_michoacana_expands_its_attacks
     ] La Familia MichoacA!n, which originally began as such a vigilante
     group, vigilantism frequently does not end well.

      

     This is where Anonymous may fit in. With Mexican citizens unable to rely
     on their government, the media or even armed vigilante groups for
     assistance, they may embrace Anonymous and come to view its form of
     cyber vigilantism as an outlet for their frustration -- and a perceived
     safe way to pass oninformation pertaining to cartel activities.  If this
     occurs, we may see people not just in Veracruz and other Zeta controlled
     areas providing information to Anonymous, but citizens from all over the
     country.

      

     Also, in the same way that cartels leak information togovernments in an
     effort to use them as weapons against their rivals, we could also very
     well see groups such as the Sinaloa cartel provide information on Los
     Zetas to Anonymous. This of course would provide even more reason for
     Los Zetas to strike out against the activist collective.

      

     If the Anonymous information campaign does indeed take off, and if
     Anonymous is attacked by Los Zetas, the activists could resort to
     releasing sensitive information to the U.S. Drug Enforcement
     Administration in an attempt to damage Los Zetas. This would be an
     incredible irony in light of the way Anonymous has viewed itself as an
     opponent of the U.S. government in cases like Wikileaks. (Anonymous has
     made it clear that the value they provide is a safe and private medium
     through which to pass this damning information. Their stated priority is
     to publicize information that people send to them. But, do they have a
     way to protect their sources? They likely don't have much collective
     experience in source handling. I imagine a lot of the details they get
     could put their sources in serious trouble. If I were a semi-smart
     Mexican who knew some super detailed information on the cartels, I would
     think long and hard before handing it over to these guys. This may be a
     separate piece entirely, but I think we need a discussion on source
     handling and how good hackers don't necessarily make good intelligence
     agents.)

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   STRATFOR

   T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967

   www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-01 23:46:55",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/171808_re-s-weekly-for-comment-placing-the-anonymous-vs-zeta.html","ben.west@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
175366,"Fwd: Emre's new sources - Source update
","   Sources

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Meredith Friedman\" <mfriedman@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Emre Dogru\" <emre.dogru@stratfor.com>, \"scott stewart\"
   <scott.stewart@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 4:45:51 PM
   Subject: RE: Emre's new sources - Source update

   Good job Emre - we'll send you to more conferences I think:)

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Emre Dogru [mailto:emre.dogru@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 2:57 AM
   To: scott stewart; Meredith Friedman
   Subject: Emre's new sources - Source update
   Hey Meredith and Scott, I would like to give you a brief update about my
   new sources after the security conference that I attended this past
   weekend. (Meredith, I asked Scott to give me permission to attend this
   conference in November to expand my source network). List below does not
   include all new sources, but those who can and willing to cooperate. I
   believe these new sources will enhance our ability to gather information
   on technical issues such as energy, military and foreign trade.

   Cheers,
   Emre

   Source: One guy and one lady from Turkish State petroleum company (TPAO).
   Guy is an expert on energy security in the Middle East and the lady works
   on the Caucasus, Central Europe and Black Sea. They both are responsible
   for natural gas and oil.
   Status: They are really willing to cooperate and at the end of the
   conference we have a personal relationship. Will be exchanging views and
   information with them in the future. I am pretty confident that they will
   provide us valuable information. They also told me that they will talk to
   their superior this week to buy a Stratfor institutional subscription. I
   will let you know when I hear from them.

   Source: Expert in the Turkish army's strategic research center.
   Status: Willing to cooperate. Exchanged contact information. But I'm not
   sure about his qualifications.

   Source: Turkish air force official, head of strategic planning. He says he
   writes speech notes for air force commander when he attends national
   security council.
   Status: He was very willing to talk during lunch and dinner. He said he
   would be happy to provide information to me if I've questions.

   Source: Turkish diplomat at Turkish FM's NATO department.
   Status: Promised each other to exchange information. I know many people
   from NATO department but could get in touch with him if needed.

   Source: Expert in Undersecretary for Foreign Trade.
   Status: I didn't meet this guy at the security conference. I knew him from
   my undergraduate studies. We met in a reception at least five years ago. I
   had to get some information from foreign trade institution for a special
   report that I will be working this week. He  helped me to get in touch
   with people could answer my questions, who gave me tons of information for
   my research. They said I could ask them anything that I would like to know
   in the future.

   Source update: My main Kurdish source (TR 705), who informed us about PKK
   ceasefires three times in the past, has become a member of the Turkish
   main opposition party's (CHP) leadership as a result of the congress that
   was held this past weekend.

 --
 Emre Dogru

 STRATFOR
 Cell:  +90.532.465.7514
 Fixed: +1.512.279.9468
 emre.dogru@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com

   --
   --
   Emre Dogru
   STRATFOR  
   Cell: +90.532.465.7514
   Fixed: +1.512.279.9468  
   emre.dogru@stratfor.com  
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-22 16:03:40",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/175366_fwd-emre-s-new-sources-source-update-.html","emre.dogru@stratfor.com","","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com",""
181299,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/181299_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
183507,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/183507_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
184236,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
 CODE
","   It might sound strange, but some of the most radical deep ecology people
   actually believe that there are too many people on the earth and that
   radical steps must be taken to reduce the population and save the earth.
    This strain of deep ecology is a clear reflection of the way the movement
   was heavily influenced by people like Martin Heidegger who were also
   committed to Nazism. Yes, Nazis were radical environmentalists.....
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:08:31 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Jesus I spent a couple of hours researching these guys - weird is an
   understatement. Apparently they met yesterday a couple of blocks away from
   my house to consolidate their leadership, go through basic indoctrination
   and plan more events. As far as I can tell, the Austin chapter is not
   nearly as radical as the central Lierre Keith DGR whose website is a
   treasure trove of incitment to passive resistance, blowing up energy
   infra, basic counter intel and legal guidance.

   Their ideology seems to be a mix of hardcore environmentalism, anarchism,
   radical feminism and the general notion that we need to go back living
   sustainably like the american indians by blowing up every pipeline and
   cell tower on the planet. Unlike the central DGR, Austin DGR doesn't seem
   to have defined targets and goals (their meeting yesterday was a
   brainstorming session on what radical environmentalism means in Austin).

   just a few nice quotes from their central website:

   The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power
   with as much personal integrity as possible; it is to dismantle those
   systems.

   What would we do if Nazis had invaded, and they were vacuuming the oceans,
   scalping native forests, damming every river, changing the climate, and
   putting carcinogens into every mother's breast milk, and into the flesh of
   your children, your lover, your mother, into your own flesh? How much
   worse would the damage have to get? Would you resist? If there existed a
   resistance movement, would you join it?

   On 11/16/11 7:42 PM, Victoria Allen wrote:

     WHOA.
     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
     Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:38:01 -0600
     To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
     ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
     Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
     CODE
     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-17 14:01:00",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/184236_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
185945,"Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions blast in Iran
","   I am not saying that we should believe something only when it hits the OS.
   My point is about proceeding forward from a single source report. We
   shouldn't completely dismiss it but the issue is confirmation before
   something related pops up in the OS.

   On 11/14/11 9:30 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

     Yes but an intelligence agency that secures a single piece of insight
     that is then corroborated by the infamous OS leads one to believe that
     either the same source is responsible for both or perhaps there is smoke
     that indicates a fire?    We tend to not believe things unless there is
     OS.  The best intel never see's the light of day.  I'm more circumspect
     when it is in the OS...unless of course, we planted it.  

     p.s. I'm offended that we may believe an Iranian before a Jew. 

     cc:  APAC, JINSA. 

     On 11/14/2011 8:21 AM, Kamran Bokhari wrote:

       As an intelligence entity we can't simply accept a single piece of
       insight as truth.

       On 11/14/11 9:10 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

         Guerrilla actions behind enemy lines.  

         If we think the Izzies have set back waiting on Iran to create a
         bomb we are like the CIA with their inability to predict just about
         anything. 

         Check INSIGHT I posted last week that everyone discounted.  How come
         if its not in OS we nash our teeth?  Intelligence agencies exist to
         have sources.  That is what we are.  

         On 11/14/2011 8:06 AM, Kamran Bokhari wrote:

           Penetrating a major military installation and causing a blast is a
           totally different ballgame. Not saying it can't happen. But we
           can't assume that because they did stuxnet that they are capable
           of doing this blast as well. It is a huge leap in capabilities.

           Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
           Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
           Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:03:34 -0600 (CST)
           To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
           ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
           Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions
           blast in Iran
           It clearly does not. Look at the thousand centrifuges. Please
           reread the 2 stuxnet analyses.

           There are enough iranians who have aliyah'd to israel that they
           could easily train a persian looking, farsi speaking jew to go
           into Iran for sabotage and not get caught. I don't know that this
           is happening nor do I assume that there would not be mistakes, but
           its very possible to do this undetected. The key is recruiting
           human agents on the bases. This was clearly done with stuxnet,
           though it may have been unknowingly

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: \"Kamran Bokhari\" <bokhari@stratfor.com>
           Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
           Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:59:47 -0600 (CST)
           To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
           ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
           Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions
           blast in Iran
           Yeah this seems really unlikely. '79 was a whole different
           reality. The security establishment has the placed locked down.
           Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: Abe Selig <abe.selig@stratfor.com>
           Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
           Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:45:14 -0600 (CST)
           To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
           ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
           Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions
           blast in Iran
           There are still about 20,000 Jews in Iran (Tehran and Esfahan
           mostly), but IMO, they are far too scared of being accused as
           Israeli spies too actually help Israel out.

           On 11/14/11 7:32 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

             Ah.  As stick said, they would more likely use proxies.  But if
             not,  special operations forces do often move undetected.  Don't
             think of them as going in on a helicopter, think of them as
             going in with a group of migrant workers crossing the border. 
             There used to be a lot of jews in Iran, not so much anymore,
             that's who I would recruit form. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

             From: \"Kamran Bokhari\" <bokhari@stratfor.com>
             To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
             Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 7:11:15 AM
             Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions
             blast in Iran

             See insight below.
             Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

             From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
             Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
             Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:10:06 -0600 (CST)
             To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
             ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
             Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions
             blast in Iran
             what commandos?

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

             From: \"Kamran Bokhari\" <bokhari@stratfor.com>
             To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
             Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 6:39:07 AM
             Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions
             blast in Iran

             How did Israeli commandos get to operate deep inside Iran
             without being detected?
             Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

             From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
             Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
             Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 05:54:41 -0600 (CST)
             To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
             ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
             Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions
             blast in Iran
             I agree.  The argument here is that the proponents of
             conventional war are ones that want the oil prices--but is it
             really that simple?  What about other economic effects?  For
             Israel, by this argument, it doesn't matter what method as long
             as it sets Iran back----I agree with this.  However, the
             confidence that this guy has does not show publicly.  By that, I
             mean look at what Dagan was saying a year ago, and how quiet
             Israeli leaders have been.  Suddenly they are really pushing the
             issue, and while Dagan isn't it, his line is that conventional
             war would be a mistake, not that Iran doesn't need to be dealt
             with.  I don't really like trying to interpret public
             statements, but I think there is something here, and that's why
             I keep pushing this. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

             From: \"Chris Farnham\" <chris.farnham@stratfor.com>
             To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
             Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 7:22:52 PM
             Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions
             blast in Iran

             I think the info that Fred sent in previously needs to be looked
             quite seriously here.

             The insight seems like quite a stretch however it has been put
             out there for some reason or another and is now playing in to
             what we are seeing.

             Insight below:

             Source below was asked to clarify his remarks that the nuclear
             infrastructure had been destroyed.  Source response:

             Israeli commandos in collaboration with Kurd forces destroyed
             few underground facilities mainly used for the Iranian defense
             and nuclear research projects.

             Despite the reports in the media and against any public
             knowledge, the promoter of a massive Israeli attack on Syria is
             the axis India-Russia-Turkey-Saudi Arabia. The axis
             US-Germany-France-China is against such an attack from obvious
             reasons. Not many people know that Russia is one of Israel's
             largest military partners and India is Israel's largest client.

             If a direct conflict between Iran and Israel erupts, Russia and
             Saudi Arabia will gain the advantages on oil increasing prices.
             On the other hand, China and Europe are expected to loose from
             an oil crisis as a result of a conflict. Based on Israeli plans,
             the attack on Iran will last only 48 hours but will be so
             destructive that Iran will be unable to retaliate or recover and
             the government will fall. It is hard to believe that Hamas or
             Hezbollah will try to get involved in this conflict.

             In the open media many are pushing and expecting Israel to
             launch a massive attack on Iran. Even if the Israelis have the
             capabilities and are ready to attack by air, sea and land, there
             is no need to attack the nuclear program at this point after the
             commandos destroyed a significant part of it.

             If a massive attack on Iran happens soon, then the attack will
             have political and oil reasons and not nuclear. It is also very
             hard to believe that the Israelis will initiate an attack unless
             they act as a contractor for other nations or if Iran or its
             proxies attack first. With the revealed of the new UN report the
             Israelis have green light to take care of the Iranian proxies in
             Gaza and Lebanon now with the entire world watching Iran. I
             think that we should expect escalations on these fronts rather
             than an Israeli attack on Iran.

             On 11/7/11 8:09 AM, Chris Farnham wrote: Ah, what? Israel has
             already destroyed the Iranian prog/infra and this is all being
             engineered by Europeans so people forget about the economy
             crisis?!

             How and when did the Israelis destroy the infra on the ground?

             Why is that we see the vast majority of the increase in pressure
             coming from Israel (I mean straight from people's mouths) and
             from the US (Such as Albright in the WaPo)?

             Would anyone actually accept that this could let the Europeans
             forget about the Euro crisis, something they have been
             experiencing every day for over a year?!

             Do we attribute any credibility to this item at all? I don't
             even see what possible disinfo purposes this could serve.

             On 11/7/11 7:54 AM, Benjamin Preisler wrote:

               Code: IL701
               Publication: for background
               Attribution: none
               Source Description - Confirmed Israeli Intelligence Agent
               Source reliability: Still testing
               Item credibility: untested
               Source handler: Fred

               Source was asked what he thought of reports that the Israelis
               were preparing a military offensive against Iran.  Response:

               I think this is a diversion. The Israelis already destroyed
               all the Iranian nuclear infrastructure on the ground weeks
               ago. The current \"let's bomb Iran\" campaign was ordered by the
               EU leaders to divert the public attention from their at home
               financial problems. It plays also well for the US  since
               Pakistan, Russia and N. Korea are mentioned in the report. 

               The result of this campaign will be massive attacks on Gaza
               and strikes on Hezbollah in both Lebanon and Syria.

               --

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

             From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>
             To: analysts@stratfor.com
             Sent: Monday, 14 November, 2011 11:52:04 AM
             Subject: Re: S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions blast in
             Iran

             wow, that's an extremely revealing statement.  The Israelis (i
             believe it was even Barak then too) made very similar comments
             following the Stuxnet news as well.  THe whole 'I'm not going to
             admit publicly that we did it, but boy that was nice.' 

             i think we need a piece laying out the details as far as we know
             of what happened and where and point out the holes in the
             accident theory. i think our assessment on the constraints of an
             Israeli attack on Iranian sites holds. It's the sabotage efforts
             where the most resources are being concentrated, which makes a
             lot of strategic and tactical sense for Israel and US in dealing
             with Iran at this stage

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

             From: \"Ben West\" <ben.west@stratfor.com>
             To: \"alerts\" <alerts@stratfor.com>
             Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 2:40:06 PM
             Subject: S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions blast in
             Iran

             Interesting comments by the defense minister.

             http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i28MvYyqR9sGxc2cZ4U1QlPPQFLA?docId=CNG.93c1b5af9b6cb71a17bf389563809eb2.a1
             Israel hails deadly blast in Iran

             (AFP) - 1 hour ago 

             JERUSALEM - Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak on Sunday hailed
             the deadly munitions blast at a base of Iran's elite
             Revolutionary Guards and hoped for more such incidents.

             \"I don't know the extent of the explosion,\" he told military
             radio, asked about the incident. \"But it would be desirable if
             they multiply.\"

             Iran said earlier that a senior general who pioneered an
             artillery and missile unit was among the 17 Guards reported
             killed in Saturday's blast at Bid Ganeh, near the town of Malard
             on the western outskirts of Tehran.

             Guards spokesman commander Ramezan Sharif said the blast, which
             Iran said was an accident, occurred as \"ammunition was taken out
             of the depot and was being moved outside toward the appropriate
             site.\"

             Set up after the 1979 Islamic revolution to defend Iran, the
             Guards are in charge of the Islamic republic's missile
             programme, including Shahab-3 missiles with a range of 2,000
             kilometres (1,200 miles) capable of hitting Israel.

             Saturday's blast came amid international condemnation of Iran
             since the release of a new UN nuclear watchdog report accusing
             Tehran of working towards the development of nuclear warheads to
             fit inside its medium-range missiles.

             Israeli officials have in past weeks warned Iran of the
             possibility of military strikes against its nuclear sites.

             Ben West
             Tactical Analyst
             STRATFOR
             512-744-4300
             ext. 4340

             --

             Chris Farnham
             Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
             Australia Mobile: 0423372241
             Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
             www.stratfor.com

             --
             Sean Noonan
             Tactical Analyst
             STRATFOR
             T: +1 512-279-9479 | M: +1 512-758-5967
             www.STRATFOR.com

             --
             Sean Noonan
             Tactical Analyst
             STRATFOR
             T: +1 512-279-9479 | M: +1 512-758-5967
             www.STRATFOR.com

             --
             Sean Noonan
             Tactical Analyst
             STRATFOR
             T: +1 512-279-9479 | M: +1 512-758-5967
             www.STRATFOR.com

 --
 -
 Abe Selig
 Officer, Operations Center
 STRATFOR
 T: 512.279.9489 | M: 512.574.3846
 www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-14 15:40:05",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/185945_re-alpha-s3-g3-israel-iran-barak-hails-munitions-blast-in.html","bokhari@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
199603,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - PAKISTAN - Sequence of events in NATO attack
 -	PK001
","   What does 'embrace shahadat' mean?

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Kamran Bokhari\" <bokhari@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Friday, 2 December, 2011 12:41:57 PM
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - PAKISTAN - Sequence of events in NATO attack
   -        PK001

   From colonel source at army headquarters

                     CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS-26 November 2011

   A*          15-30 minutes after midnight 2-3 helicopters appeared and
   started engaging Volcano Post ; communication broke down

   A*          Boulder Post engaged helicopters with 12.7 mm Anti Aircraft
   guns and all available weapons

   A*          Helicopters engaged Boulder post and communication with both
   the posts broke down

   A*          Because the communication had broken down, Company Commander
   Major Mujahid moved from Company headquarters to assess the situation and
   embraced shahadat as he reached  the Boulder Post

   A*          All channels (Coordination Mechanism) activated

   A*          Confirmation received that helicopters had pulled back by
   about 0105 hours

   A*          Since both the posts (Volcano and Boulder) were out of
   communication, commanding officer ordered neighbouring companyA*s company
   commander (Major Mustafa) to reinforce Boulder Post

   A*          This reinforcement got pinned down due to re-engagement by
   helicopters

   A*          26 air burst rounds of artillery were fired by own troops
   against the helicopters

   A*          Engagement from both sides lasted, intermittently till
   approximately 0215 hours

   A*          The magnitude of the incident only transpired at day break

   A*          Corps Commander landed at the posts early morning

    

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   Australia Mobile: 0423372241
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-12-02 04:52:00",1,"2012-02-29 23:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/199603_re-alpha-insight-pakistan-sequence-of-events-in-nato-attack.html","chris.farnham@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
201031,"","   Ok, that makes sense

   Sent from my iPhone
   On Dec 5, 2011, at 9:43 PM, \"George Friedman\"
   <friedman@att.blackberry.net> wrote:

     It does check out with what I heard in caracas but that increases the
     chance its gossip.

     If this is a source you suspect may have value, you have to take control
     od him. Control means financial, sexual or psychological control to the
     point where he would reveal his sourcing and be tasked. This is
     difficult to do when you are known to be affiliated with an intelligence
     organization. The decision on approach would not come from you but from
     your handler. This is because you're position is too close to the source
     and your judgment by definition suspect. Each meeting would be planned
     between you and your handler and each meeting would have a specific goal
     not built around discussing the topic of interest which would ideally be
     hidden but in analyzing him personally and moving toward control.
     The justification for the op would be specific classes of information
     and on gaining control the first step would be determining his access.
     If he failed the test contact would be terminated.

     the problem of analysts in the field is that they tend to want to
     discuss the topic, which raises the targets awareness, rather than focus
     on establishing the control relationship.

     So from a professional point of view this target knows your affiliation,
     understands your interests and you have not established any control
     which is defined as a high confidence in his obedience.

     So washington is filled with gossip with people whose access is not
     established.

     Just laying this out so you understand the core challenge. To be
     effective your goal is the person and not the subject. Otherwise its
     gossip which is information that you cannot definitively confirm.

     This is intended to start our conversation on your next phase.
     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Reva Bhalla <bhalla@stratfor.com>
     Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 20:30:10 -0600 (CST)
     To: <friedman@att.blackberry.net>
     Subject: Re: INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Update on Chavez's health, power
     struggle, etc. - VZ302
     Yes, I have much to learn and I may be just an analyst, but i'm not 100%
     incapable of evaluating a source i've known for a while.  I've listened
     to waht you've told me about reading a source (the Turk with the
     twitch.) I figured out what this source's twitch is in reading his
     eyes.  I've gotten much better in evaluating what info to take more
     seriously and what info to disregard. The info i included below is what
     I would consider more seriously and seems to check out with what we've
     seen elsewhere.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"George Friedman\" <friedman@att.blackberry.net>
     To: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 9:26:02 PM
     Subject: Fw: Fwd: INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Update on Chavez's health, power
     struggle, etc. - VZ302

     The problem with analyst sources is they are unqualified. This means
     that we don't have clarity on their sources and therefore can't evaluate
     accuracy. This could be valuable humint or pure rumint.

     One of the reasons I want you to execute missions is to learn how to
     evaluate sources. This is a very difficult art but one you must learn.

     The gut is to be trusted only after its well trained.
     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Reva Bhalla <bhalla@stratfor.com>
     Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 20:14:51 -0600 (CST)
     To: George Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Fwd: INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Update on Chavez's health, power
     struggle, etc. - VZ302

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>
     To: watchofficer@statfor.com
     Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 9:13:24 PM
     Subject: INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Update on Chavez's health, power
     struggle, etc. - VZ302

     SOURCE: VZ302
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: well-connected VZ source working with Israel
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     SOURCE RELIABILITY: B - source is anti-Chavez, but I've gotten better at
     reading him over the years to tell when he's feeding me shit and when
     he's giving useful info - his info on the VZ regime has checked out, but
     i tend to be more skeptical on iran-related info
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
     SPECIAL HANDLING: Alpha, scrub source info and also make sure rest of
     latam team sees this
     SOURCE HANDLER: Reva

     Chavez's health - the tumor started as a growth close to the prostate,
     it spread to the colon, which is what led to a lot of confusion in the
     OS about the treatment of prostate v. colon cancer  in hormonal v.
     chemotherapy. A reliable source on the medical has explained that the
     cancer has spread to the lymph nodes and into the bone marrow up to the
     spine, ie. very serious.

     Chavez temporarily stopped the chemo in order to make an appearance at
     the recent CELAC meeting.  The medical team is made up of both Russian
     and Cuban doctors. Both sides are clashing.  THe Russian team blamed the
     Cubans for an improper surgery the first time in trying to remove the
     tumor. The second surgery over the summer was basically the Russian team
     trying to clean up the Cuban team's mistakes. The Russians complain that
     the Cubans dont have the right imagery treatment to properly treat
     Chavez.  The Cuban medical diagnosis is 2 years. The Russian medical
     diagnosis, due to improper medical equipment, is less than one year. The
     source on the medical team complains that Chavez is a very 'bad
     patient.' He doesn't listen to his doctors, he ceases treatment when he
     has to make a public appearance. Now the Russian and the Chinese doctors
     are going at it because Chavez sought hte advice of a Chinese doctor
     that advocates more natural treatments and the Russians are saying this
     is horse shit treatment. only chavez can get the most politicized
     medical team in the world.
     (note - if you see medical reports on Chavez's health in WSJ or Brazil's
     Veja magazine, it's probably coming from this source.)

     Who replaces Chavez?
     I would keep my eye on FM Nicolas Maduro. Maduro is loyal as a dog to
     Chavez. (the source knows Maduro personally, from the days that Maduro
     was a driver of the metro bus.)  At the same time, maduro is seen as the
     most pragmatic in the regime.  If Chavez's health deteriorates
     significantly before the scheduled Oct 2012 elections, expect him to
     proclaim Maduro as his successor in one way or another. You can already
     see him propping up Maduro in a lot of ways. This is less risky than
     Chavez going through with elections, winning, suddenly dying and then a
     power struggle among the Chavistas breaking out. It will be much harder
     in this latter scenario for Maduro to assert himself against rival
     Chavistas like Diosdado Cabello, Rafiel Ramirez, etc.

     Remember that there are four key players propping up the regime - China,
     Cuba, Russia, Iran. All four are split on how to manage a post-Chavez
     regime. China and Russia are more insulated, as they've tried to get
     away from Chavez the personality, to preserving Chavismo, the regime.
     Russia has set up a specific task force (note the Patrushev visits) to
     help manage the post-chavez transition. Both China and Russia are
     backing Maduro as their preferred successor. Cuba, however, is in
     trouble.  They can't count on a Maduro to continue subsidizing them with
     thousands of barrels of oil every day. No one is really paying attention
     to Cuba - they can;t count on the Europeans for investment. Without VZ,
     they're screwed. The Cubans so far have been backing Adan Chavez
     (Chavez's brother) as the preferred candidate, but he doesnt have the
     same following. Cuba may shift to backing Maduro. (At this point in the
     convo, i brought up the possibility of Cuba, having the best intel on
     VZ, using that intel to leverage with the US and open up its options -
     he agreed that's what the Castros will do to survive but he hasnt seen
     serious signs of this.. yet.)

     Maduro is seen as more of a Lula candidate. He has a following, he has
     charisma, but he's also a balancer. He's the kind of guy that would open
     up to the US and keep tight with everyone else, but that still makes
     Iran nervous.  The source seems to think that Obama in his second term
     would open up to Maduro (and this is something that he is actively
     working on.)

     The opposition -
     Venezuela is divided into 5 different strata - A, B, C, D, E - A ++ is
     the elite of the elite, the boli-bourgeoisie that that Chavez has very
     successfully vilified. Chavez doesn't give a shit about these guys. His
     base is the D and E.
     Capriles Radonski, Leopoldo Lopez, Maria Corina Machado are all the A++
     - way too elitist. They can't win over the chavista vote.
     The only one that has a real chance is Pablo Perez - Zulia governor -
     he's actually seen as one of the people.  The conversation between him
     adn the Castros is jsut starting up. (i asked if Perez is talking to
     Maduro yet - he says not yet.)

     guess who has been most cooperative with us lately?   The military
     elite.  These guys have been living the good life. They love women...
     lots of women. THey love booze. They love bora bora. They are easy to
     bribe. They dont care about chavez. they care about maintaining their
     current lifestyles. We've seen a lot of these military elite reach out
     to us lately, trying to insulate themselves in a post-Chavez scenario.

     This is why you'll see Chavez investing a lot of time and money in
     developing the militia. They're his best insurance policy. The more of a
     problem the militia can create on the streets, the more the military
     elite will hestiate before acting against him or his potential
     successor.

     The intent of the ley de precios is very simple. The money laundering
     schemes in food, pharmaceuticals, energy parts, etc. etc. have gotten
     worse./ Completely unchecked.  This price controls law is the
     government's way of controlling opposition campaign spending. Very
     straightforward - they have the legal justification to intimidate
     corporations into cutting back their support for the opposition, or
     else, their company is taken over. This will allow the state more
     control of the private sector.

     (side note) - we were talking a bit about a recent PdVSA-Iran joint
     venture. They shifted their main base of operations from Caracas to
     Ankara, though. This has become a trend lately, where a lot of Iran's
     sanctions circumventing oeprations in VZ are quietly being relocated to
     Turkey. Part of Turkey's balancing act with Iran.

     these were the main points. will update with more..little fuzzy from
     wine right now.
","2011-12-06 03:50:15",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/201031_.html","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com","","friedman@att.blackberry.net",""
201547,"Re: INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Update on Chavez's health, power
 struggle, etc. - VZ302
","   Yes, I have much to learn and I may be just an analyst, but i'm not 100%
   incapable of evaluating a source i've known for a while.  I've listened to
   waht you've told me about reading a source (the Turk with the twitch.) I
   figured out what this source's twitch is in reading his eyes.  I've gotten
   much better in evaluating what info to take more seriously and what info
   to disregard. The info i included below is what I would consider more
   seriously and seems to check out with what we've seen elsewhere.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"George Friedman\" <friedman@att.blackberry.net>
   To: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 9:26:02 PM
   Subject: Fw: Fwd: INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Update on Chavez's health, power
   struggle, etc. - VZ302

   The problem with analyst sources is they are unqualified. This means that
   we don't have clarity on their sources and therefore can't evaluate
   accuracy. This could be valuable humint or pure rumint.

   One of the reasons I want you to execute missions is to learn how to
   evaluate sources. This is a very difficult art but one you must learn.

   The gut is to be trusted only after its well trained.
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Reva Bhalla <bhalla@stratfor.com>
   Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 20:14:51 -0600 (CST)
   To: George Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Fwd: INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Update on Chavez's health, power
   struggle, etc. - VZ302

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>
   To: watchofficer@statfor.com
   Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 9:13:24 PM
   Subject: INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Update on Chavez's health, power struggle,
   etc. - VZ302

   SOURCE: VZ302
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: well-connected VZ source working with Israel
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B - source is anti-Chavez, but I've gotten better at
   reading him over the years to tell when he's feeding me shit and when he's
   giving useful info - his info on the VZ regime has checked out, but i tend
   to be more skeptical on iran-related info
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   SPECIAL HANDLING: Alpha, scrub source info and also make sure rest of
   latam team sees this
   SOURCE HANDLER: Reva

   Chavez's health - the tumor started as a growth close to the prostate, it
   spread to the colon, which is what led to a lot of confusion in the OS
   about the treatment of prostate v. colon cancer  in hormonal v.
   chemotherapy. A reliable source on the medical has explained that the
   cancer has spread to the lymph nodes and into the bone marrow up to the
   spine, ie. very serious.

   Chavez temporarily stopped the chemo in order to make an appearance at the
   recent CELAC meeting.  The medical team is made up of both Russian and
   Cuban doctors. Both sides are clashing.  THe Russian team blamed the
   Cubans for an improper surgery the first time in trying to remove the
   tumor. The second surgery over the summer was basically the Russian team
   trying to clean up the Cuban team's mistakes. The Russians complain that
   the Cubans dont have the right imagery treatment to properly treat
   Chavez.  The Cuban medical diagnosis is 2 years. The Russian medical
   diagnosis, due to improper medical equipment, is less than one year. The
   source on the medical team complains that Chavez is a very 'bad patient.'
   He doesn't listen to his doctors, he ceases treatment when he has to make
   a public appearance. Now the Russian and the Chinese doctors are going at
   it because Chavez sought hte advice of a Chinese doctor that advocates
   more natural treatments and the Russians are saying this is horse shit
   treatment. only chavez can get the most politicized medical team in the
   world.
   (note - if you see medical reports on Chavez's health in WSJ or Brazil's
   Veja magazine, it's probably coming from this source.)

   Who replaces Chavez?
   I would keep my eye on FM Nicolas Maduro. Maduro is loyal as a dog to
   Chavez. (the source knows Maduro personally, from the days that Maduro was
   a driver of the metro bus.)  At the same time, maduro is seen as the most
   pragmatic in the regime.  If Chavez's health deteriorates significantly
   before the scheduled Oct 2012 elections, expect him to proclaim Maduro as
   his successor in one way or another. You can already see him propping up
   Maduro in a lot of ways. This is less risky than Chavez going through with
   elections, winning, suddenly dying and then a power struggle among the
   Chavistas breaking out. It will be much harder in this latter scenario for
   Maduro to assert himself against rival Chavistas like Diosdado Cabello,
   Rafiel Ramirez, etc.

   Remember that there are four key players propping up the regime - China,
   Cuba, Russia, Iran. All four are split on how to manage a post-Chavez
   regime. China and Russia are more insulated, as they've tried to get away
   from Chavez the personality, to preserving Chavismo, the regime. Russia
   has set up a specific task force (note the Patrushev visits) to help
   manage the post-chavez transition. Both China and Russia are backing
   Maduro as their preferred successor. Cuba, however, is in trouble.  They
   can't count on a Maduro to continue subsidizing them with thousands of
   barrels of oil every day. No one is really paying attention to Cuba - they
   can;t count on the Europeans for investment. Without VZ, they're screwed.
   The Cubans so far have been backing Adan Chavez (Chavez's brother) as the
   preferred candidate, but he doesnt have the same following. Cuba may shift
   to backing Maduro. (At this point in the convo, i brought up the
   possibility of Cuba, having the best intel on VZ, using that intel to
   leverage with the US and open up its options - he agreed that's what the
   Castros will do to survive but he hasnt seen serious signs of this.. yet.)

   Maduro is seen as more of a Lula candidate. He has a following, he has
   charisma, but he's also a balancer. He's the kind of guy that would open
   up to the US and keep tight with everyone else, but that still makes Iran
   nervous.  The source seems to think that Obama in his second term would
   open up to Maduro (and this is something that he is actively working on.)

   The opposition -
   Venezuela is divided into 5 different strata - A, B, C, D, E - A ++ is the
   elite of the elite, the boli-bourgeoisie that that Chavez has very
   successfully vilified. Chavez doesn't give a shit about these guys. His
   base is the D and E.
   Capriles Radonski, Leopoldo Lopez, Maria Corina Machado are all the A++ -
   way too elitist. They can't win over the chavista vote.
   The only one that has a real chance is Pablo Perez - Zulia governor - he's
   actually seen as one of the people.  The conversation between him adn the
   Castros is jsut starting up. (i asked if Perez is talking to Maduro yet -
   he says not yet.)

   guess who has been most cooperative with us lately?   The military elite. 
   These guys have been living the good life. They love women... lots of
   women. THey love booze. They love bora bora. They are easy to bribe. They
   dont care about chavez. they care about maintaining their current
   lifestyles. We've seen a lot of these military elite reach out to us
   lately, trying to insulate themselves in a post-Chavez scenario.

   This is why you'll see Chavez investing a lot of time and money in
   developing the militia. They're his best insurance policy. The more of a
   problem the militia can create on the streets, the more the military elite
   will hestiate before acting against him or his potential successor.

   The intent of the ley de precios is very simple. The money laundering
   schemes in food, pharmaceuticals, energy parts, etc. etc. have gotten
   worse./ Completely unchecked.  This price controls law is the government's
   way of controlling opposition campaign spending. Very straightforward -
   they have the legal justification to intimidate corporations into cutting
   back their support for the opposition, or else, their company is taken
   over. This will allow the state more control of the private sector.

   (side note) - we were talking a bit about a recent PdVSA-Iran joint
   venture. They shifted their main base of operations from Caracas to
   Ankara, though. This has become a trend lately, where a lot of Iran's
   sanctions circumventing oeprations in VZ are quietly being relocated to
   Turkey. Part of Turkey's balancing act with Iran.

   these were the main points. will update with more..little fuzzy from wine
   right now.
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-03-01 04:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/201547_re-insight-venezuela-update-on-chavez-s-health-power.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","","friedman@att.blackberry.net",""
202526,"Re: INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Update on Chavez's health, power struggle, etc. - VZ302
","   It does check out with what I heard in caracas but that increases the
   chance its gossip.

   If this is a source you suspect may have value, you have to take control
   od him. Control means financial, sexual or psychological control to the
   point where he would reveal his sourcing and be tasked. This is difficult
   to do when you are known to be affiliated with an intelligence
   organization. The decision on approach would not come from you but from
   your handler. This is because you're position is too close to the source
   and your judgment by definition suspect. Each meeting would be planned
   between you and your handler and each meeting would have a specific goal
   not built around discussing the topic of interest which would ideally be
   hidden but in analyzing him personally and moving toward control.
   The justification for the op would be specific classes of information and
   on gaining control the first step would be determining his access. If he
   failed the test contact would be terminated.

   the problem of analysts in the field is that they tend to want to discuss
   the topic, which raises the targets awareness, rather than focus on
   establishing the control relationship.

   So from a professional point of view this target knows your affiliation,
   understands your interests and you have not established any control which
   is defined as a high confidence in his obedience.

   So washington is filled with gossip with people whose access is not
   established.

   Just laying this out so you understand the core challenge. To be effective
   your goal is the person and not the subject. Otherwise its gossip which is
   information that you cannot definitively confirm.

   This is intended to start our conversation on your next phase.
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Reva Bhalla <bhalla@stratfor.com>
   Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 20:30:10 -0600 (CST)
   To: <friedman@att.blackberry.net>
   Subject: Re: INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Update on Chavez's health, power
   struggle, etc. - VZ302
   Yes, I have much to learn and I may be just an analyst, but i'm not 100%
   incapable of evaluating a source i've known for a while.  I've listened to
   waht you've told me about reading a source (the Turk with the twitch.) I
   figured out what this source's twitch is in reading his eyes.  I've gotten
   much better in evaluating what info to take more seriously and what info
   to disregard. The info i included below is what I would consider more
   seriously and seems to check out with what we've seen elsewhere.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"George Friedman\" <friedman@att.blackberry.net>
   To: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 9:26:02 PM
   Subject: Fw: Fwd: INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Update on Chavez's health, power
   struggle, etc. - VZ302

   The problem with analyst sources is they are unqualified. This means that
   we don't have clarity on their sources and therefore can't evaluate
   accuracy. This could be valuable humint or pure rumint.

   One of the reasons I want you to execute missions is to learn how to
   evaluate sources. This is a very difficult art but one you must learn.

   The gut is to be trusted only after its well trained.
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Reva Bhalla <bhalla@stratfor.com>
   Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 20:14:51 -0600 (CST)
   To: George Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Fwd: INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Update on Chavez's health, power
   struggle, etc. - VZ302

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>
   To: watchofficer@statfor.com
   Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 9:13:24 PM
   Subject: INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Update on Chavez's health, power struggle,
   etc. - VZ302

   SOURCE: VZ302
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: well-connected VZ source working with Israel
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B - source is anti-Chavez, but I've gotten better at
   reading him over the years to tell when he's feeding me shit and when he's
   giving useful info - his info on the VZ regime has checked out, but i tend
   to be more skeptical on iran-related info
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   SPECIAL HANDLING: Alpha, scrub source info and also make sure rest of
   latam team sees this
   SOURCE HANDLER: Reva

   Chavez's health - the tumor started as a growth close to the prostate, it
   spread to the colon, which is what led to a lot of confusion in the OS
   about the treatment of prostate v. colon cancer  in hormonal v.
   chemotherapy. A reliable source on the medical has explained that the
   cancer has spread to the lymph nodes and into the bone marrow up to the
   spine, ie. very serious.

   Chavez temporarily stopped the chemo in order to make an appearance at the
   recent CELAC meeting.  The medical team is made up of both Russian and
   Cuban doctors. Both sides are clashing.  THe Russian team blamed the
   Cubans for an improper surgery the first time in trying to remove the
   tumor. The second surgery over the summer was basically the Russian team
   trying to clean up the Cuban team's mistakes. The Russians complain that
   the Cubans dont have the right imagery treatment to properly treat
   Chavez.  The Cuban medical diagnosis is 2 years. The Russian medical
   diagnosis, due to improper medical equipment, is less than one year. The
   source on the medical team complains that Chavez is a very 'bad patient.'
   He doesn't listen to his doctors, he ceases treatment when he has to make
   a public appearance. Now the Russian and the Chinese doctors are going at
   it because Chavez sought hte advice of a Chinese doctor that advocates
   more natural treatments and the Russians are saying this is horse shit
   treatment. only chavez can get the most politicized medical team in the
   world.
   (note - if you see medical reports on Chavez's health in WSJ or Brazil's
   Veja magazine, it's probably coming from this source.)

   Who replaces Chavez?
   I would keep my eye on FM Nicolas Maduro. Maduro is loyal as a dog to
   Chavez. (the source knows Maduro personally, from the days that Maduro was
   a driver of the metro bus.)  At the same time, maduro is seen as the most
   pragmatic in the regime.  If Chavez's health deteriorates significantly
   before the scheduled Oct 2012 elections, expect him to proclaim Maduro as
   his successor in one way or another. You can already see him propping up
   Maduro in a lot of ways. This is less risky than Chavez going through with
   elections, winning, suddenly dying and then a power struggle among the
   Chavistas breaking out. It will be much harder in this latter scenario for
   Maduro to assert himself against rival Chavistas like Diosdado Cabello,
   Rafiel Ramirez, etc.

   Remember that there are four key players propping up the regime - China,
   Cuba, Russia, Iran. All four are split on how to manage a post-Chavez
   regime. China and Russia are more insulated, as they've tried to get away
   from Chavez the personality, to preserving Chavismo, the regime. Russia
   has set up a specific task force (note the Patrushev visits) to help
   manage the post-chavez transition. Both China and Russia are backing
   Maduro as their preferred successor. Cuba, however, is in trouble.  They
   can't count on a Maduro to continue subsidizing them with thousands of
   barrels of oil every day. No one is really paying attention to Cuba - they
   can;t count on the Europeans for investment. Without VZ, they're screwed.
   The Cubans so far have been backing Adan Chavez (Chavez's brother) as the
   preferred candidate, but he doesnt have the same following. Cuba may shift
   to backing Maduro. (At this point in the convo, i brought up the
   possibility of Cuba, having the best intel on VZ, using that intel to
   leverage with the US and open up its options - he agreed that's what the
   Castros will do to survive but he hasnt seen serious signs of this.. yet.)

   Maduro is seen as more of a Lula candidate. He has a following, he has
   charisma, but he's also a balancer. He's the kind of guy that would open
   up to the US and keep tight with everyone else, but that still makes Iran
   nervous.  The source seems to think that Obama in his second term would
   open up to Maduro (and this is something that he is actively working on.)

   The opposition -
   Venezuela is divided into 5 different strata - A, B, C, D, E - A ++ is the
   elite of the elite, the boli-bourgeoisie that that Chavez has very
   successfully vilified. Chavez doesn't give a shit about these guys. His
   base is the D and E.
   Capriles Radonski, Leopoldo Lopez, Maria Corina Machado are all the A++ -
   way too elitist. They can't win over the chavista vote.
   The only one that has a real chance is Pablo Perez - Zulia governor - he's
   actually seen as one of the people.  The conversation between him adn the
   Castros is jsut starting up. (i asked if Perez is talking to Maduro yet -
   he says not yet.)

   guess who has been most cooperative with us lately?   The military elite. 
   These guys have been living the good life. They love women... lots of
   women. THey love booze. They love bora bora. They are easy to bribe. They
   dont care about chavez. they care about maintaining their current
   lifestyles. We've seen a lot of these military elite reach out to us
   lately, trying to insulate themselves in a post-Chavez scenario.

   This is why you'll see Chavez investing a lot of time and money in
   developing the militia. They're his best insurance policy. The more of a
   problem the militia can create on the streets, the more the military elite
   will hestiate before acting against him or his potential successor.

   The intent of the ley de precios is very simple. The money laundering
   schemes in food, pharmaceuticals, energy parts, etc. etc. have gotten
   worse./ Completely unchecked.  This price controls law is the government's
   way of controlling opposition campaign spending. Very straightforward -
   they have the legal justification to intimidate corporations into cutting
   back their support for the opposition, or else, their company is taken
   over. This will allow the state more control of the private sector.

   (side note) - we were talking a bit about a recent PdVSA-Iran joint
   venture. They shifted their main base of operations from Caracas to
   Ankara, though. This has become a trend lately, where a lot of Iran's
   sanctions circumventing oeprations in VZ are quietly being relocated to
   Turkey. Part of Turkey's balancing act with Iran.

   these were the main points. will update with more..little fuzzy from wine
   right now.
","2011-12-06 03:43:19",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/202526_re-insight-venezuela-update-on-chavez-s-health-power.html","friedman@att.blackberry.net","","bhalla@stratfor.com",""
204278,"[alpha] INSIGHT - MYANMAR - political struggles - via CN65
","   CN65 has a Burmese source that was educated at LSE and was until recently
   working in Beijing as trade and investment adviser for a well connected
   firm there.  He is now back in Myanmar.  CN65 sent him our latest Myanmar
   piece and his response is below.

   SOURCE: via CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes, but without attribution (please speak with me first)
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: A
   SPECIAL HANDLING: Speak with me before any publication
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

         It covers all the main bits and it is exactly more or less what
         everyone feels.
         What is quite interesting for me (and this is just me) is there is a
         power game being played between the president and the
         vice-president.
         The VP is very close to the Chinese and is generally very unpopular.
         I think all these visits etc is going to marginalise the VP even
         more.
         We shall see.
","2011-12-07 18:09:22",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/204278_-alpha-insight-myanmar-political-struggles-via-cn65-.html","marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
209776,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - CHINA - China and Latam in 2012 - CN13
","   This is awesome.

   Sent from my iPhone
   On Dec 16, 2011, at 5:37, Allison Fedirka <allison.fedirka@stratfor.com>
   wrote:

     SOURCE: CN13
     ATTRIBUTION: Sino-Latam expert
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Founder of SinoLatin Capital
     PUBLICATION: Yes, with no attribution.  Per Karen's request.
     SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: A/B
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

     So here is what I see happening in 2012: Chinese companies will realize
     that many of their investments in Latam have been failures:
     - Example: Beidahuang in Argentina (Rio Negro)
     - Example: Zijin Mining in Peru - Examples: Shunde Ruixin in Chile

     Failures have happened for a number of reasons:
     1. Lack of understanding of how to do deals overseas, and especially in
     Latam
     2. Perception that the having a relationship with Latam government (ie.
     The President or whomever) is good enough
     3. The President of the country in many cases can't control what is
     going on in a particular province, and Chinese firms need to understand
     that the local political situation is what really matters (national
     politics is almost irrelevant)
     4. Not hiring competent advisors. Not hiring advisors at all. Why?
     Mainly because it's difficult for Chinese firms to pay money for
     \"advice\" and also in some cases there isn't a relationship with the
     advisor. So the trust isn't there
     5. Overpaying for some assets.
     6. Underpaying for some assets. In instances where Chinese underpaid,
     they bought the wrong asset. It may have been cheap, but that's because
     it was located next to the narcotrafficker drug logistics corridor :)

     The lessons learned? Those that have lost face won't look inwardly. They
     will blame it \"on the Peruvians.\"
     a:,*aa(R)*aa*\"c,S:*e^2*aa-oS:ae**eu*a:,*aaYEN 1/2. Others will be
     more circumspect. There is a Biblical proverb that says that if you
     rebuke a wise man, he will appreciate it and grow wiser. And there are a
     number of wise people running Chinese companies. Smart people will learn
     from their mistakes and do things better the next time around.

     Another trend that I see is that Chinese companies will start doing
     manufacturing deals. Particularly in Brazil. Excavator companies like
     Sany or Zoomlion will buy manufacturing plants in Brazil because they
     need to get into the Brazil market. There's going to be an explosion of
     activity in this sector.

     What isn't clear is what China will do in the Castro-Chavez sphere of
     influence (e.g. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua). In Cuba
     there are Chinese firms that built offshore oil rigs. In Venezuela they
     are building rail lines. And in Bolivia they are trying to get a hold of
     lithium. But I don't see much real investment capital being put at risk.
     For all the talk about China's \"investments\" in Venezuela, a careful
     review will show that China isn't really investing. They are just buying
     cheap oil from the Venezuelans, selling it at a markup to the Americans,
     and with the profits they build railroads (with Chinese equipment,
     contractors, etc). China wins in every which way without putting down a
     dime of their own capital. On a related note, a month or so ago, thieves
     broke into the house of the Head of China Railroad Group in Caracas. It
     seems the fellow was held up at gunpoint while the looters stole
     everything that wasn't nailed down. Don't get me going on what is going
     on in Venezuela. What a mess. It will end very badly for the Chavistas.

     In the Taiwan sphere of influence (Caribbean, Central America,
     Paraguay), I see China making economic inroads. But I don't think anyone
     cares anymore if the particular country recognizes Taiwan. China is
     doing things in Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, etc. From a political
     standpoint, nobody seems to care.

     Latin America's 'Honeymoon Period' with China is transitioning into a
     more mature marriage. On the plus side, both sides are understanding
     each other better. On the negative side, both sides are understanding
     each other better :). The more you get to know someone, the more the
     warts come out. Chinese firms are increasingly seen as not transparent,
     culturally insensitive, capricious and greedy. Latins are viewed by the
     Chinese as un-serious, lazy, and burdened with overly complex labor
     laws, environmental groups and excessive bureaucracy. Will any of this
     impede business? In my book no. This is a marriage in which both sides
     really, really need each other. China needs to acquire resources in
     order to grow while Latin America needs to sell resources in order to
     grow. I think that 2012 will be another year of \"settling in\" and both
     sides will get more and more used to each other. I liken it to being in
     the bathroom brushing your teeth while your wife is on the john. When
     you get to that point, you know the honeymoon period is over :).

     Our firm is still deeply committed to China and Latin America. We act as
     a bridge that allows both sides to understand each other and we're
     betting our personal and professional careers on the growing linkages
     between the two regions. So for all the perceived negativity above,
     please interpret it for what it is: an un-jaundiced view of the
     situation that isn't prejudicial or political. We've been at this now
     for some time and despite the hiccups, we're still very optimistic. We
     want China and Latin America to succeed, and we see things getting a

     --
     Allison Fedirka
     South America Correspondent
     STRATFOR
     US Cell: +1.512.496.3466 A| Brazil Cell: +55.11.9343.7752
     www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-12-16 23:34:10",1,"2012-03-05 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/209776_re-alpha-insight-china-china-and-latam-in-2012-cn13-.html","hooper@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
209919,"[alpha] RE-SENDING WITH SOURCE CODE - INSIGHT - PNA - Ideology
 behind leadership at Ma'an News Agency - PS200
","   Per Jenn's request.

   On 12/17/11 11:03 AM, Bayless Parsley wrote:

     Sending straight to alpha because no WO on. Replying to this thread
     because it's in reference to the bias we should be aware of from Ma'an
     News Agency, whose story Mikey just pasted in response to the insight on
     what's happening at Pal camps in Lebanon. Source is new, just met him on
     my trip. He's a journalist who works for Ma'an. Insight below is his
     response to my questions about wtf his boss was saying in the article I
     pasted below the insight ('Palestinian editor says Jerusalem will be
     liberated with \"military honor\"'):

     Nasser [Ma'an editor in chief Nasr al-Lahham] is the man but he's a nut.
     I know him well. Israelis know him too, he used to report from the
     Knesset and interviewed I think their president once at his home. 
     His point here, seems to me, is Abbas' strategy of building institutions
     and restoring security, rather than violently resisting, is key to
     liberating Palestine. He's telling the recruits they're just as
     important and valuable as Hezbollah and don't let anyone tell you
     otherwise 
     Here's the inside scoop on Nasser and the key to understanding how Maan
     remains the only truly independent news source in Palestine: He's a
     decades long supporter of the Popular Front, was president of the PFLP
     at Bethlehem Univ. and went to jail six years for it. 
     As a PFLP supporter, he detests organized religion and its mixing in
     politics (Hamas) just as much as he hates
     materialism/capitalism/corruption (Fatah). (On that second point, he's
     probably the most beloved media personality in the country and has huge
     influence, yet he never thought to move out of the refugee camp where he
     was born. Badass.) 
     The other important thing to know about Nasser, more important than
     anything else I just mentioned, is that he is batshit insane. Really do
     love the guy but something is off up there, trust me. He will spout out
     the craziest theories every once in a while ** 
     ----------------------------------------

     Palestinian editor says Jerusalem will be liberated with \"military
     honor\"

     Ma'an News Agency reports at 0429 gmt that its editor in chief Nasr
     al-Lahham, delivered a speech to a group of 600 Palestinian security
     personnel at Jericho's Palestinian Academy for Security Sciences, also
     known as Al-Istiqlal University. The event was attended by several
     high-ranking security figures such as Tawfiq al-Tirawi, head of the
     university board of management, and Nayif Jaradat, the academy's acting
     president.

     The report says that Al-Lahham \"spoke about the occupation and how most
     of the young Jewish people do not know the meaning of the word
     occupation, because they have been brainwashed by the Israeli military
     and media establishments.\"

     He praises Palestinian [National] Authority (PNA) President Mahmud
     Abbas, and likens him to Palestinian figures such as Yasir Arafat and
     Khalid Mish'al, explaining that \"all of them refused to give up on any
     right.\"

     Al-Lahham calls for an end to the criticism of Palestinians via
     satellite television and urges the media to respect the \"conscience of
     the Palestinian youth,\" adding that such criticism is tantamount to
     \"criticizing a whole generation's will of resistance and defiance.\" He
     continues: \"You are the future. I stand before you, and I see no
     difference between you and Hezbollah fighters in south Lebanon. They
     liberated their homeland and you will liberate Jerusalem, God willing.\"
     He concludes his speech by saying \"I swear in the pure blood of your
     father that we will pray in Jerusalem and you will liberate it with your
     military honour.\"

     Source: Ma'an News Agency website, Bethlehem, in Arabic 0429 gmt 30 Nov
     11

     BBC Mon ME1 MEEauosc 011211 sg

     On 12/16/11 2:59 PM, Michael Wilson wrote:

    Fatah figure denies plan to eliminate Salafists in Lebanese refugee camp 
                                                                             
    Text of report by independent, non-governmental Palestinian Ma'an News   
    Agency website                                                           
                                                                             
    [\"Exclusive\" report: \"Al-Maqdah: Fatah not preparing plan to eliminate   
    Jund al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam\"]                                        
                                                                             
    Bethlehem, 15 December (Ma'an) - Munir al-Maqdah, commander of the Fatah 
    movement's general headquarters in Lebanon, denied that Palestinian      
    forces in the Ayn al-Hulwah refugee camp in south Lebanon are planning   
    to eliminate operatives from the Jund al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam         
    organizations. These organizations have been accused of being behind the 
    assassination of 2nd lieutenant Ashraf al-Qadiri, escort of Mahmud Isa,  
    also known as Al-Linu, commander of the Palestinian Armed Struggle.      
                                                                             
    Al-Maqdah told Ma'an's radio network that the political leadership in    
    Ayn al-Hulwah has set up a committee to investigate the assassination,   
    but not to eliminate any particular operative or individual. He said     
    that no one is untouchable, no matter what happens, and that anyone      
    whose name is called should immediately head to the special committee in 
    the camp, and if that person is found guilty, he will be turned over to  
    the Lebanese army.                                                       
                                                                             
    Al-Maqdah said \"there are no operatives from Fatah al-Islam or Jund      
    al-Sham in the camp, and this was an isolated incident.\" He added that   
    there are ongoing meetings in the camp \"because there are people who     
    want to spark clashes in the camps, both internally and with their       
    neighbours, and undermine the stability and security in the camps.\"      
                                                                             
    Asked about the reconciliation and the latest meeting between            
    Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas and HAMAS Political Bureau chief      
    Khalid Mish'al in Cairo, Al-Maqdah said this was a positive step towards 
    the future Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. He said the  
    reconciliation is a Palestinian demand and a force to confront Israel    
    with, and expressed hope that this demand will be fully and clearly      
    realized.                                                                
                                                                             
    Source: Ma'an News Agency website, Bethlehem, in Arabic 1851 gmt 15 Dec  
    11                                                                       
                                                                             
    BBC Mon ME1 MEEauosc 161211 nan                                          

              (c) Copyright British Broadcasting Corporation 2011

 --

       On 12/15/11 7:44 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:

         Fatah Official Says Jund al-Sham Killed al-Lino's Bodyguard

         http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/23367-fatah-official-says-jund-al-sham-killed-al-linos-bodyguard

         by Naharnet Newsdesk 36 minutes ago

         A Fatah official has accused members of the militant group Jund
         al-Sham of assassinating the bodyguard of Palestinian Armed Struggle
         chief Mahmoud Issa, who goes by the nom de guerre of al-Lino.

         The official, who refused to be identified, told al-Liwaa daily
         published Thursday that a Jund al-Sham militant opened fire on
         28-year-old Ashraf al-Qaderi at the Palestinian refugee camp of Ain
         el-Hilweh on Wednesday, killing him instantly.

         Cautious calm prevailed on Thursday in the camp that lies near the
         southern port city of Sidon.

         But the official said that the remaining members of Jund al-Sham are
         seeking to create tension after several security incidents, bombings
         and shootings at the camp.

         He added that several members of the militant group had been
         arrested by the Palestinian Armed Struggle and handed over to
         Lebanese authorities.

         The official hinted that al-Qaderi's killing was aimed at taking
         vengeance at the arrests.

         Keeping an eye on those cookey Palestinians with their guns and
         their shooting. Oy vey! [nick]

         Palestinian commander's bodyguard killed in Lebanon

         http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=342778

         December 15, 2011

         The bodyguard of a top Palestinian commander was shot dead on
         Wednesday in a refugee camp in southern Lebanon, a local official
         said.

         \"At around 10:00 p.m., a masked gunman shot and killed Ashraf Qadiri
         at his shop here in the Ain al-Hilweh camp,\" said Munir Maqdah, in
         charge of security at the camp near the southern coastal city of
         Saida.

         Qadiri was a bodyguard for Mohammed Abdel Hamid Issa, alias
         \"Al-Lino,\" the head of Palestinian party Fatah's police force in Ain
         al-Hilweh.

         Maqdah said Fatah forces had gone on alert and deployed throughout
         the camp, adding that the shooter had not yet been identified.

         Wednesday's shooting was the second such incident this week
         targeting one of Issa's bodyguards.

         Ain al-Helweh, the largest Palestinian camp in the country, is home
         to about 50,000 refugees and is known to harbor extremists and
         fugitives.

         By long-standing convention, the Lebanese army does not enter the
         country's 12 refugee camps, leaving security inside to the
         Palestinians themselves.

         The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees
         (UNRWA) estimates that some 425,000 Palestinian refugees are living
         in Lebanon, a country with a population of four million.

         Others, however, estimate the number to be closer to 250,000.

         -AFP/NOW Lebanon

         --

         On 11/29/11 12:03 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

           I don't think al-Saiqa has been very active since at least the
           1990s.  Their militant history has as far as I'm aware always been
           fighting within Lebanon and Syria, not towards Israel (though they
           did claim some int'l terror attacks in the 1980s).  That is all
           very different from the rocket attacks the last 24 hours, not to
           mention that Saiqa didn't claim those.   

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
           To: \"alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
           Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:30:13 AM
           Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - SYRIA/LEBANON - Syrian activity in Pal
           camps -        ME1403

           SOURCE: ME1403
           ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR source
           SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Fatah military source in Lebanon
           PUBLICATION: yes
           SOURCE RELIABILITY: B - good track record in reporting
           ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
           SPECIAL HANDLING: Alpha
           SOURCE HANDLER: Reva

           the PA has damning evidence about the intention of the Syrian
           regime to cause trouble in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.
           Dozens of Syrian men have in recent weeks moved into major camps
           such as Ain al-Hilwa, Sabra & Shatila, al-Biddawi and al-Burj
           al-Shimali. The Syrians appear bent of exploding the security
           situation in the camps should the security situation in Syria go
           out of control. This will be part of the Syrian regime's efforts
           to hold Lebanon hostage and to use it in order to negotiate a deal
           with the West.

           The Syrians believe that the French are leading the Western
           efforts to isolate the Syrian regime. They are also aware that the
           French feel they have a moral and historical responsibility
           towards Lebanon. Therefore, the Syrians seem to want to use
           Lebanon to stop the French diplomatic drive against the regime in
           Damascus. The Syrians arriving into camps in Lebanon belong to
           al-Saeqa Palestinian guerrilla movement, which is largely seen as
           an extention of the Syrian army intelligence.

           --
           Sean Noonan
           Tactical Analyst
           STRATFOR
           T: +1 512-279-9479 | M: +1 512-758-5967
           www.STRATFOR.com

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Director of Watch Officer Group
 STRATFOR
 221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
 Austin, TX 78701
 T: +1 512 744 4300 ex 4112
 www.STRATFOR.com

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Director of Watch Officer Group
 STRATFOR
 221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
 Austin, TX 78701
 T: +1 512 744 4300 ex 4112
 www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-12-17 19:44:13",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/209919_-alpha-re-sending-with-source-code-insight-pna-ideology.html","bayless.parsley@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
211021,"Re: [alpha] RE-SENDING WITH SOURCE CODE - INSIGHT - ISRAEL - Convo
 with an IDF intel officer - IL200
","   sorry IL200 not IS

   On 12/17/11 12:43 PM, Bayless Parsley wrote:

     This is per Jenn's request.

     On 12/15/11 10:30 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

       Source is an old friend from college who is now a major in IDF
       intelligence. Had not seen one another in years. Very secretive of
       what they do; seemed pretty suspicious about what exactly I was doing
       in Israel. Nothing too groundbreaking, just some interesting
       observations.

       - When I used the term \"Arab Spring\" early on in our conversation, I
       was reprimanded. \"Don't call it the Arab Spring. We call it 'The
       Upheaval' where I work.\" When I tried to explain that we typically
       scoff at calling it the Arab Spring as well, I was cut off, so that I
       could hear another lecture about how horrible Arabs were. Israelis
       aren't the nicest people most of the time.

       - Opsec at IDI (Israel Defense Intelligence) seems pretty extreme. If
       you try to email this person, you don't hear back for a month, minimum
       - usually even longer. Reason is because no websites that have
       passwords are allowed at work. Emails for internal comms only.

       - Source is in D.C. frequently for meetings with DIA. When I asked if
       they are often trained by the Americans, the response was a smirk and,
       \"We like to think we don't need the Americans to train us.\" IDI,
       source said, is \"more creative\" than American counterparts. The way
       they work sounded similar in philosophy to STRATFOR, actually. For
       example, there is a specific officer who is referred to as the
       \"Devil's advocate\" at the IDI offices. This person is allowed to
       challenge any random paper on any topic, produced by someone of any
       rank. If a paper is written that says, hypothetically, that Bashar
       will fall in three weeks, the Devil's advocate can then say, \"Okay,
       I'm challenging this assertion. Now, I want you to write the exact
       opposite argument and play out the logic.\" Source did not deny that
       they, too, can fall prey to groupthink like any other intelligence
       body, but was a firm believe that this was a good way to avoid it.

       - \"Where are the moderates in the Muslim world?\" That was the theme of
       the conversation on source's end. If you listen to this person, you
       come away with the notion that the Israelis seem extremely unnerved
       about the future of the region, with the primary focus being on the
       Iranian threat. (Again, this is not groundbreaking insight.)

       - Source openly said that none of this shit would be happening right
       now had Obama not abandoned Mubarak like he did. When I later
       criticized Bush for shattering the balance of power in the PG, source
       shot back, \"Well what about Obama?\" I said that Obama had maintained
       the same FP as Bush, a claim with which the source agreed. And yet the
       source loves Bush's policies and hates Obama's. Israelis are not a fan
       of Barack.

       - Because Obama abandoned Mubarak, source lamented the fact that Egypt
       was no longer the leader of the Arab world. This does not mean source
       believes the MB is on the verge of completely taking power in Egypt -
       (I specifically asked if that was the belief the IDI holds) - but it
       does mean that there is a steep drop in faith that the SCAF has
       ability to maintain the status quo. Overall I found the message on
       Egypt a bit confusing.

       - Part of the reason that the message was confused message imo is
       because the source openly admits that in the IDI, people have a
       singular focus on the outside world. Like STRATFOR, they are largely
       disconnected with domestic politics. So the Syria people identify with
       Syria, the Hezbollah people will jokingly say stuff like, \"I am in
       Hezbollah\" when you ask them their AOR, etc.

       - The IDI is very much focused on the Shiite crest ranging from Iran
       to Lebanon. Iran is the primary threat in the world today. Source was
       heavily concerned with how Yemen plays into this as well; much moreso
       than what we talk about. \"AQAP is in control of south fucking Yemen,
       for God's sake.\" Source says they jokingly refer to AQAP as \"AQHP\"
       after the HP printer bombs that got seized on those DHL flights a few
       years back.

       - The IDI is operating on the assumption that Yemen will be completely
       out of water in eight years. I asked if this was their own assessment
       and source said, \"No, it's public information. You can find it on
       Wikipedia.\" I think it took about one second for the source to realize
       retarded that sounded, citing Wikipedia when you're a major at the
       IDI, and so immediately it was amended with, \"there have been studies
       published.\" Fear about Yemen running out of water is mass migrations
       into KSA, which Iran could exploit.

       - When I said that there were people in the Israeli
       government/military/intel community who reads STRATFOR, source said,
       \"I can check on that for you.\" Thanks.
","2011-12-17 20:01:41",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/211021_re-alpha-re-sending-with-source-code-insight-israel-convo.html","bayless.parsley@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
211497,"FW: [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] RE: WikiLeaks and the Afghan War
","We need to make this guy our friend.=20



-----Original Message-----
From: responses-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:responses-bounces@stratfor.com=
] On Behalf Of vinay448@yahoo.co.in
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 5:38 AM
To: responses@stratfor.com
Subject: [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] RE: WikiLeaks and the Afghan =
War

MAJ GEN VINAY BHATNAGAR sent a message using the contact form at=20=20
https://www.stratfor.com/contact.

One of the interesting aspects brought out by these leaks is the support th=
e=20=20
ISI has given the Taliban to attack Indian Missions and Activities in=20=20
Afganistan. These are authetic reports, acknowledged by US officals. US Aid=
=20=20
to Pakistan is also diverted to support other terrorist organisations, whic=
h=20=20
not only act in India, but also against US interests in Afganistan and=20=
=20
Pakistan.
Pakistan, as a nation has always craftly followed the principle of \" Runnin=
g=20=20
with the Hare, while Hunting with the Hound\"
.We in India have no reason to ever believe the soundness of their desire t=
o=20=20
have peace with India-- Peace would destroy the traditional muscle the=20=
=20
Pakistani Army wields in running that country.
As for the US and it's Allies in Afganistan, they have no option but to \"Gr=
in=20=20
On\" at the intricacies that  unfold !




Source:=20=20
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100726_wikileaks_and_afghan_war?utm_source=
=3DGWeekly&utm_medium=3Demail&utm_campaign=3D1007027&utm_content=3Dreadmore=
&elq=3D7d68179903a242c1a84164085bfc85fc
","2010-07-29 13:32:00",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/211497_fw-analytical-and-intelligence-comments-re-wikileaks-and-the.html","scott.stewart@stratfor.com","","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com",""
218047,"[alpha] INSIGHT - PNG - Two PMs - CN65
","   **intel on the OS report below.

   SOURCE: CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: A
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

   If Somare tries to pass anything through the House, he will fail, and
   under the Westminster tradition that triggers cause for the G-G to appoint
   another PM even if there's been no vote of no confidence.

   Uncle Ben is advising O'Neill. Peter is sitting in Parliament challenging
   Somare to bring on a vote on anything, such as a new Speaker. Of course a
   defeat provides a trigger. 

   We believe Peter will eventually prevail because the Chamber supports him.
   This is what Westminster democracy is about. 
   The business community wants Peter, as does Australia. Somare returns PNG
   to a cess pit of corruption, incompetence and mediocrity. Need I regale
   you with the details of my meeting last year with Somare's housing
   minister who was stoned on betel nut?
   It is wrong though that business put O'Neill in place: it was Uncle Ben
   and his Highlands circle, along with others like Babani. These are the
   sensible people. 

           Papua New Guinea in crisis with two PMs, two police chiefs

     PAPUA New Guinea plunged into a constitutional crisis yesterday as Peter
     O'Neill, rejecting a Supreme Court ruling that removed him as prime
     minister, occupied the government benches in parliament and broke though
     a police barricade at the Governor-General's residence.

     Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said PNG had entered uncharted
     waters since Monday's Supreme Court split ruling that reinstated Michael
     Somare and prompted armed police to stand guard at the vice-regal
     residence in Port Moresby .

     About 60 MPs loyal to Mr O'Neill stormed past the police at the gates of
     Government House yesterday and insisted on a meeting with
     Governor-General Michael Oglio.

     \"We are unarmed and we're the legitimate government,\" they chanted
     according to the ABC.

     Standing at the gates of Government House, Mr O'Neill declared: \"As
     parliament speaks today, I am the prime minister of the country, and
     Somare is trying to hijack it with some hooligan policemen.\"

     Some of the police guarding Government House are loyal to Sir Michael.
     One of his first acts when the court ordered he return to government was
     to reinstate former police commissioner Fred Yakasa and oust Mr
     O'Neill's appointee Tom Kulunga.

     Mr O'Neill said Mr Oglio had met with him briefly yesterday and said he
     had agreed to meet Sir Michael, the founding father of PNG and known as
     the grand chief, today.

     \"I cannot discuss the details of that meeting because he has to afford
     the same level of courtesy to the grand chief,\" Mr O'Neill said.

     \"He will meet with the grand chief tomorrow. He will then write to both
     of us and express his decision on the best way to move forward.\"

     Shots were fired outside Government House on Monday night, and yesterday
     Mr O'Neill's treasurer Don Polye urged the MPs to be peaceful amid a
     heavily armed police presence.

     \"We must sit. There is no need for shooting. I urge you all to sit down
     and be peaceful,\" Mr Polye said.

     Sir Michael is understood to be at the popular Ela Beach Hotel in Port
     Moresby, where he has set up cabinet made up mostly of ministers from
     his previous government. Sir Michael's daughter Betha told the news
     agency Agence-France Presse that her father had made it to Government
     House and been sworn in, although this could not be confirmed elsewhere.

     \"The PM has already gone into Government House and he's already signed
     off on the instruments recognising Sir Michael as prime minister,\" she
     said.

     But she added that his ministers had been prevented from joining him
     after Mr O'Neill and dozens of his MPs blockaded the building. \"What's
     happening at the gates of Government House is that the government, or
     the rogues that were ousted, have blocked off the Government House
     gates,\" she said. \"So the people that are supposed to be sworn in cannot
     be sworn in.\"

     Mr Ogio was seeking legal advice yesterday, including from private
     lawyers, before deciding which claimant to swear in.

     Sir Michael Ogio - appointed Governor-General this year when Sir Michael
     was unquestionably the prime minister - swore in Mr O'Neill at the
     August 2 parliamentary sitting that elected him after Speaker Jeffery
     Nape ruled that the top office was vacant.

     At that stage, Sir Michael - who has run the country for almost half of
     its 36 years of independence - had been away in Singapore for four
     months undergoing medical treatment.

     The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Salamo Injia ruled by 3-2 on
     Monday that the prime ministership was not vacant, since Sir Michael had
     neither resigned nor been ruled medically unfit to govern.

     Sir Michael, 75, yesterday denied his health would prevent him from
     returning to office. \"My doctor in Singapore believes that my health is
     as good as any. I'm well enough to be a 40 year old again,\" he told the
     ABC.

     Sir Michael's claim to the prime ministership rests with the 3-2 ruling.
     Mr O'Neill's claim rests with his re-election yesterday by parliament,
     69-0, following the judgment.

     Mr Nape said during the emergency parliament sitting that he would only
     recognise the government of Mr O'Neill, whose MPs refused to vacate the
     government's side of the chamber. Adding to the chaos yesterday, the
     rivals pushed ahead with appointments, leaving the country with two
     cabinets and two police chiefs.

     The police, divided between Mr O'Neill's commissioner, Mr Kulunga, and
     Sir Michael's new appointment, Mr Yakasa, were playing a key role in
     choosing which group could gain access to key institutions of state and,
     most importantly, to the Governor-General. The armed police outside the
     Governor-General's residence were loyal to Sir Michael, the ABC
     reported.

     Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd told ABC radio from New York he was \"deeply
     concerned\" about the situation in the former Australian mandate.

     \"Obviously there are heightened political intentions within Port Moresby
     with two, as it were, alternative prime ministers. This is unknown
     terrain in Papua New Guinea,\" Mr Rudd said.

     \"But we of course have been urging calm on the part of all parties. The
     PNG Defence Force has been directed to remain within barracks.

     \"We have a very, very protracted political dispute between a number of
     politicians in Port Moresby.

     \"We therefore have a responsibility to support a peaceful resolution to
     this dispute - violence would help nobody - and that's what we intend to
     do while at the same time fully respecting Papua New Guinea's
     sovereignty.

     \"We therefore will be watching these developments very closely and using
     quiet diplomacy with all parties. Our immediate concern is simply to
     await the deliberations of the Governor-General.\"

     Australians in Papua New Guinea have been warned to stay away from
     crowded areas, particularly near the court and government buildings.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +216 22 73 23 19
 www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-12-14 15:14:35",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/218047_-alpha-insight-png-two-pms-cn65-.html","ben.preisler@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
220936,"INSIGHT - RUSSIA/EU/CA/Caucasus - Energy politics
","   PUBLICATION: background/analysis
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Ambassador-at-large for energy security, Czech
   Republic and chief of CR's nuclear tender for Temelin
   SOURCE  Reliability :  B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2 
   DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
   SOURCE HANDLER: Reva
   The level of distrust between Ukraine and Russia is unbelievable. You know
   it's bad when they are using guys like me to communicate with each other.
   There is a very, very small number of people who actually know what's
   going on in the nat gas negotiations -- Putin, Medvedev, head of Naftogaz,
   Miller of Gazprom, Yanukovich and maybe the FM. By trust, I mean,  for
   example, you, Reva  and I have a deal. I sell X amount to you, we settle
   on an amount to trim from the top and keep for ourselves, clean the books,
   etc. Now, all of a sudden, I am replaced. You don't the person you're
   dealing with anymore and if he will uphold his end of the deal. Thoughout
   the 1990s things worked fine. Over the past few years, though, ppl kept
   getting replaced and nobody could trust each other. This is how we got to
   the last cutoff.
   Putin's strategy during the last cutoff was the following:
   Russia know Ukraine is stealing X amount of gas. Russia will send Z amount
   of gas promised to Europe plus the X amount of gas Ukraine was stealing.
   The objective was to portray Ukraine as the villain, while Russia could be
   seen as the dependable partner. Bulgaria, Slovakia and Serbia were the
   only ones who be feeling the shortages.
   When I met with Putin and Sechin during this cutoff, I was very blunt with
   them. I told them the strategy doesn't work. We in Czech Republic,
   Slovakia, etc. will survive without Russian gas. We will process other
   fuel, it may be dirty, but who cares. We are also getting offers at a
   third of the price from Qatar and others. So, Russia doesn't have that
   leverage that it had in 2006. These moves only encourage the Europeans to
   find other suppliers.  This is a problem for Putin... there are people who
   saw the flaws of the strategy but were not able to speak up. It backfired.
     You know me, I am an atheist. I don't believe when the Bible says to
   turn the other cheek... I say if someone hits you, hit them twice back.
    This is about getting even with the Russians. We want Russia to take us
   seriously.
   Russia is very much in control of Ukrainian decision-making. Only a very
   small number of people are in the know there. The Russians don't need
   direct ownership of the energy sector to have the influence they're
   looking for right now. They were very well prepared for making their
   comeback in Ukraine. It is a well-oiled machine there.
   Kyrgyzstan was a message for the Chinese primarily.  China's presence in
   the 'Stans is the big issue right now, and the Russians need to keep China
   within limits. China brings in money and infrastructure, but when you talk
   to the regimes of these countries, they don't feel comfortable dealing
   with the Chinese like they do with the Russians. THey know the Russians -
   Russia is the default language, they know they work, etc. The Chinese come
   in on a completely different scale. These regimes are very paranoid.. if
   you look at the succession lines of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, they are all
   daughters. These govts are looking for security, and that is where Russia
   holds the upper hand over China.
   Russia is bankrupt save for the extractive industries. They having the
   oil, gas, mining, etc., but that is not a developed economy. They are not
   in good shape and there is serious thought behind the modernization plan.
   The big threat for Russia right now is not coming from the West... it
   comes from the East (China) and from the South (Islam.)   The Russians are
   showing some cooperation with US on Iran, but they haven't done anything,
   and they dont need to. It's a low-risk strategy. They aren't losing
   anything there.
   I don't have faith in Turkey's energy deal with Azerbaijan for Shah Deniz.
   It is remarkable to what degree Azerbaijan is under Russian influence.
   THey are thinking about their survival. The Azerbaijanis cannot agree to a
   final deal on Shah Deniz II.  When I was in Baku recently, they showed me
   a 3-D topographic map of Armenia, AZ, Nagorno. You can see very clearly
   that once (and if) the Armenians cross over with Russian backing, it is a
   flat path to Baku.  The Russians told them during the Georgia war that
   Georgia could just be the first stop... pretty direct threat. The
   Azerbaijanis are terrified of this. The difference between now and when
   BTC came online is that the US was actually there back then with a
   strategy. US is nonexistent in this game right now. Even the Europeans are
   disconnected. AZ, Georgia, Ukraine don't have others to turn to. All
   Russia has to do is pay off enough people or make a move in a certain
   enclave of Georgia to shut down BTC. AZ cannot only turn West... again,
   it's a matter of survival.
   Belarus will cave into Russian demands. Lukashenko knows he has no choice.
   That's 50 percent of his revenue gone otherwise, and he knows that. He is
   a nuisance for the Russians, but he isn't getting help form elsewhere.
   Even the Europeans have reproached him. 
   The Russians are very paranoid about Europe's energy plans. Sechin keeps
   asking me what is the secret plan, what are the Europeans plotting, etc. I
   tell them there is no secret plan. I wish there were one, but there really
   is not.
   The decision on building South Stream won't come until 2013-2014, after
   Nord Stream is completed. So far, Nord Stream is on track for completion,
   but it goes against Russia's energy strategy of avoiding transit states.
   The Russians are not happy with my appointment for the nuclear tender.
   They think I am anti-Russian.  The bid is between Rosatom, Areva and
   Westinghouse (Source met with Westinghouse day before our mtg). No two
   companies can enter jointly.. that would be breaking the rules of the
   tender at this stage. If Rosatom and Westinghouse try to do that for sake
   of US-Russia cooperation, then Areva would win by default. 
","2010-08-09 03:36:14",1,"2012-03-04 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/220936_insight-russia-eu-ca-caucasus-energy-politics-.html","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
221408,"Turkey update
","   Response from Ali Aslan from Zaman included below. He wants to meet with
   George and have us publish a \"clarification\" op-ed on our web site before
   they publish it in their newspapers..
   George, how would you like to proceed? This guy is based in DC.

   Sent from my iPhone
   Begin forwarded message:

     From: \"Ali Aslan\" <aslan@alihalit.com>
     Date: September 2, 2010 7:33:30 AM EDT
     To: \"'Reva Bhalla'\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
     Subject: RE: Request

     Dear Reva,
     I'm writing this letter after my consultations with top editors of Zaman
     and
     Today's Zaman on how to pursue with Dr. Friedman's request. I
     understand your representative in Turkey has also approached Zaman.
     We appreciate Dr. Friedman's interest in writing an Op-Ed for us. In
     principle, there should be no problem with that. But we think Zaman
     should
     not be the first avenue for such a clarification. The priority should be
     given to Stratfor subscribers and other audience in the West who have
     been
     immensely misled with your report. They deserve a clarification and
     hopefully a correction more than our audience in Turkey. We might always
     republish Mr. Friedman's piece after it appears in your website and
     circulated to your subscribers, provided that it meets our editorial
     policy
     standards.
     My editors are taking this issue very seriously; hence they have
     encouraged
     me to meet with Dr. Friedman personally to convey some of our concerns
     with
     the report. We believe such a dialogue could help Mr. Friedman better
     understand our position and kindly address them in his clarification,
     setting the tone for future Stratfor reports which would strike the
     right
     balance.  Please let me know if you can facilitate such a meeting or
     advise
     me how to proceed with this request.
     Your report depicts Turkey divided into secularist and Islamist camps
     and
     you clearly put our newspaper in the latter category -which we strongly
     reject- since you have labeled Zaman 'Gulenist' and in your eyes Gulen
     movement is 'Islamist'. It's a gross injustice. Our newspaper and
     readership
     body may even suffer from legal implications both in Turkey and
     elsewhere,
     given the fact that 'Islamist' is a popular label often used for radical
     movements and terrorists such as Osama bin Laden as well. That makes
     Zaman a
     direct party rather than a mere intellectual interlocutor in this
     debate.
     Therefore, we keep all our rights reserved.
     I look forward to hearing from you on our meeting request with Dr.
     Friedman.
     Thank you for your help and cooperation in advance.
     Best regards,
     Ali Aslan
     Washington Correspondent
     Zaman
     -----Original Message-----
     From: Reva Bhalla [mailto:reva.bhalla@stratfor.com]
     Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 10:58 AM
     To: Ali Aslan
     Subject: Request
     Dear Ali,
     I hope you are doing well. I am writing to you with a request. Dr.  
     George Friedman would like to write an op-ed for Zaman to explain our  
     position. Is this something you would publish?
     My very best,
     Reva
","2010-09-02 14:24:58",1,"2012-03-03 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/221408_turkey-update-.html","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com,bokhari@stratfor.com,emre.dogru@stratfor.com",""
274307,"RE: Confederation Projects for Turkey
","   As I said yesterday you can introduce me by email and I'll handle the
   explanation of what we are interested in doing etc...just think it would
   be appropriate for you to connect us rather than me emailing them cold.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Reva Bhalla [mailto:reva.bhalla@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:05 PM
   To: Meredith Friedman
   Subject: Re: Confederation Projects for Turkey
   cool, this helps
   On Mar 17, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Meredith Friedman wrote:

     This is not about published material, it's about a relationship where we
     can ask questions when there's a critical event in a certain country.
     Here is an outline of a draft initial letter I would send to someone who
     doesn't know STRATFOR very well. I amend it and fit it to each case and
     often leave out parts altogether. AS you can see there is nothing here
     that would bring up the shadow cia reputation. We are clearly producers
     of international affairs news. 
      

     We are looking to develop a relationship with a news organization in
     Ukraine and thought Kyiv Post would be a good potential partner for
     STRATFOR. We are looking for a news organization with which we can
     exchange ideas, information and reports about items of interest to our
     analysts at STRATFOR. In return we would offer you access to our
     analysis, share information and reports and give some exclusive
     interviews to your journalists at Kyiv Post. Ukraine is an important
     country in the region and we would like to be able to access a better
     level of information and understanding by working directly with some of
     Kyiv Post's journalists.

     STRATFOR focuses only on international affairs issues and we do not
     cover areas that many traditional news organizations cover such as
     sports, the arts or advertising. Our focus is on understanding global
     events through the view of geopolitics. We also have a security team
     that analyzes and collects information on issues of security that would
     affect people traveling on business or leisure throughout the world.
     That team focuses on terrorism, drug trafficking, kidnappings and things
     of that nature relating to personal and corporate security.

     What I propose is that we give you a complimentary account to
     STRATFOR.com so you can read for yourself and get better acquainted with
     our products. We would then offer access to a small group of your
     journalists (who you would designate) and would exchange information,
     research and analysis with them. We would provide one point of contact
     here at STRATFOR to work with a main point of contact at your end who
     you would designate.

     The result we are looking for is a deeper understanding of Ukraine and
     the region for STRATFOR's readers. We would hopefully provide your
     readers with a better understanding of areas you are interested in as
     well. This relationship can only increase the excellence of both our
     products and will hopefully lead to further collaboration in the future
     as we get to know and work with each other successfully. I see the first
     stage as the \"getting to know\" each other phase and strengthening our
     products to improve our news gathering and production.

     If you are interested in moving forward on this idea I will send you a
     draft agreement that you can look over and add your own comments or
     revisions. Meanwhile, would you like to have a STRATFOR account set up
     in your name so you can access our analyses and reports? If there is
     someone else who should have access in addition to you please send me
     their email addresses as well.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Reva Bhalla [mailto:reva.bhalla@stratfor.com]
     Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 2:54 PM
     To: Meredith Friedman
     Subject: Re: Confederation Projects for Turkey
     sure, i was just asking how you explain the collaboration because the
     zaman guys are an interesting case... we'll have to be careful with this
     shadow CIA reputation
     will also help me reach out to other potential confederation partners if
     I can understand better how you explain the collaboration. otherwise a
     lot of ppl come back with 'we publish everything on our web site'
     On Mar 17, 2010, at 2:50 PM, Meredith Friedman wrote:

       Introduce me as the VP of Communications for STRATFOR and say that I
       would like to discuss with them the idea of a collaboration between
       STRATFOR and X to exchange information, research and ideas that are
       useful to our analysts and to their journalists. I'll get into the
       rest. Does that work?

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       From: Reva Bhalla [mailto:reva.bhalla@stratfor.com]
       Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 2:42 PM
       To: Meredith Friedman
       Subject: Re: Confederation Projects for Turkey
       yeah, it seems like you and George met with the nationalist/secularist
       types, but the Gulen/AKP faction is extremely important as well.  I'll
       follow up with the Cihan/Zaman guys and the EnergyReport contact. can
       you send me a quick brief on how you typically explain the information
       exchange to these agencies?  that will help me set this up for you.
       On Mar 17, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Meredith Friedman wrote:

         I'm going to follow up with David Judson then...and what about the
         Today's Zaman guys? I just checked and of all the several dozen
         journalists we met there and who interviewed George there were none
         from Zaman. Do you want to email the main person thee who you think
         I should follow up with and cc me and introduce us?  You can do the
         same with the best person at Energy Report as well.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: Reva Bhalla [mailto:reva.bhalla@stratfor.com]
         Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 10:43 PM
         To: Meredith Friedman
         Subject: Confederation Projects for Turkey
         CONFEDERATION PROJECTS FOR TURKEY
         Cihan News Agency -- owns Zaman, Today's Zaman and other major
         Turkish media agencies
         Cihan provides news to: CNN International, BBC, NBC, MTV, CBS, ABC,
         Al-Jazeera, Abu Dhabi Tv, ARD, ZDF, SAT 1, TF1, Canal +, RAI, Tve,
         Antena 3, TV2 Denmark, Nos Tv, MJTV, NTV Japan, KBS, NTV Russia,
         TV6, IRIB, MEGA Channel, Bloomberg, MSMBC, ANS, Lider Tv and others.
         They have staff in Central Asia, Mideast, Balkans, Europe, South
         America, Africa, Far East. Permanent offices in places like Gaza,
         Kabul, Arbil.
         Political ideology:  Gulenist/loyal to ruling AKP
         My contact:  Abdulhamit Bilici (a.bilici@zaman.com.tr) - General
         Director of Cihan News Agency and columnist for Zaman
         Today's Zaman -- English-language version of Zaman; direct
         competitor to Hurriyet
         Has partnership with British daily The Times
         Political ideology: Gulenist/loyal to ruling AKP
         My contact: Bulent Kenes (b.kenes@todayszaman.com) - Editor in Chief
         of Today's Zaman  (both he and Bilici are extremely influential
         within the Gulen movement.)
         Additional contact:  Ali Aslan aslan@alihalit.com - columnist for
         Today's Zaman, based in Washington, DC
         Note -- I had a preliminary discussion with Mr. Bilici and Mr. Kenes
         about a partnership when I met with them at Zaman HQ in Istanbul. I
         also know their primary contact in DC. They would need a bit more
         explanation and coaxing. Their immediate response was that they
         publish all the information that they get on their Web site. What we
         would have to better explain is that we're looking for a direct
         partnership. If we have a deal with Hurriyet, then we should also
         have a deal with Cihan/Zaman to balance out politically.
         Dogan News Agency -  owns Hurriyet, Turkish Daily News and others
         Direct competitor to Cihan News Agency
         Political ideology:  A lot more neutral, but more in line with the
         nationalist/secularist camp
         Contacts:  Haluk Tukel - CEO of Dogan media group and
         Secretary-General of TUSIAD - main business association dominated by
         nationalist/secularists;  David Judson, editor in chief of Hurriyet
         - david.judson@tdn.com.tr;  Taylan Bilgic - managing editor of
         Hurriyet - taylan.bilgic@tdn.com.tr
          
         Note -- had dinner with David Judson, who explained why he was
         hesitant before to sign a deal with STRATFOR since Dogan media has
         been under attack by the Gulenists and AKP and are facing major tax
         evasion fines. They didnt want to also get branded as working with a
         'shadow CIA'. Now he feels they have enough partnerships under his
         belt to move forward with STRATFOR.  My meeting with Haluk Tukel got
         cancelled last minute, but we're in touch via email and I think I'll
         be able to meet him when he's in DC in a couple weeks.
         EnergyReport  - An energy-focused magazine written in Turkish and
         English. Launched January 2010, monthly circulation. 
         Contacts:  Gulcin Fatma Kabasakalli (fkabasakalli@yahoo.com, +90 530
         363 14 84);   Faruk Demir - mfd2030@gmail.com ( 0.530.592 46 09)
         This is a very polished energy publication run by the topmost energy
         expert in Turkey, Faruk Demir and his assistant, Fatma Kabasakalli,
         who is the editor in chief. Faruk Demir was formerly on the Turkish
         national security council. Now he conducts a lot of energy
         negotiations on behalf of Turkey, but keeps a bit of distance from
         the government to give him some flexibility. He and his assistant
         are extremely well-connected. The magazine also has a lot of good
         analysis and insider information. They are already planning on
         publishing one of George's weeklies in their next publication. I'll
         bring a copy of the magazine when I come to Austin next week. If we
         set up a formal partnership with them, we can have regular access to
         the best resources on Turkey's energy relations with Russia,
         Azerbaijan, Europe, Central Asia, US, etc. This would be extremely
         useful for our source efforts.  I met with Faruk and Fatma for lunch
         while in Istanbul and discussed a partnership with Fatma. I will be
         seeing Faruk in DC in a couple weeks.
","2010-03-18 18:50:55",1,"2012-03-03 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/274307_re-confederation-projects-for-turkey-.html","","","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com",""
275566,"RE: Follow up from STRATFOR and visit
","David -

A trust continuum is a fine description - mostly we want to have access to
someone there who can answer questions we may have when following an issue
or if something critical breaks someone we can call to get details
locally. Often these may be things that do not seem important to you but
are to us- and vice versa - although I mostly see us both focusing on
things we mutually see as important. And having you confirm something,
amplify it or put it in context or tell us we're looking at it the wrong
way is all valuable to us.

I have not yet had a chance to hear of your regionscape project but will
be sure to ask Reva about it. We certainly share your interest in not
getting damaged. I will keep you informed of any other collaborations we
move forward with in Turkey. And anything confidential you share with us
will stay with us. I'm glad you had a chance to visit with Reva. I was
speaking with Kamran yesterday and he is also looking at a trip there in
May he told me. So you may see a few of us from Stratfor in the near
future.

So, next steps. Shall I resend the draft collaboration agreement or do you
still have it? If so, feel free to make any suggested revisions you wish
and send back to me. We can get this signed so we can move forward.

I will also keep you informed of George and my plans regarding our June
visit.

Take care David and I really do look forward to seeing you again and
visiting Istanbul soon.

Best,
Meredith

-----Original Message-----
From: David Judson [mailto:david.judson@tdn.com.tr] 
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:38 PMA t
To: Meredith Friedman
Subject: RE: Follow up from STRATFOR and visit

Hi Meredith:

I think this sounds fine. My understanding of the essential model we are
trying to put together is that it is really what I might call a trust
continuum. As I explained to Reva, at the moment we have nothing
particularly concrete to offer beyond what we put on our web site. We have
an idea for an Economist style intelligence unit, shelved since late 2008
when the world became a bit darker, but that remains far from concrete.
So, the value we can offer is to confirm something for you, or amplify or
try and draw a bit of context. Farmers chatting about seed varieties over
the fence, so to speak. Kind of what reasonable should be doing anyway,
not something that necessarily requires reciprocity. In short, I like you
and George. And I like Reva. Your note describes the terms well. I briefed
the editors here on the essence of this after speaking to Reva. So we are
at your service.

Again informally, we are trying to come to a better understanding of our
\"near abroad\" in particular. Reva may have spoken to you of our
\"Regionscape\" project which unlike our intelligence unit is very much
alive. Looking over our shoulder, any advice you might give us on this
would be much appreciated.

The concern we share is not getting damaged, having something slip out of
this continuum. This is not something I fear. I am, of course, aware of
who your other potential collaborator is. I am quite sure you can keep
confidences on anything we might share and I know matters will not travel
to these folks. And that is really my only concern, which I say has
effectively been ameliorated. So we're in business.

I should emphasize that the competition between ourselves and the Zaman
group is rather assymetrical. They like to perceive us as a competitor. As
Reva's notes will reflect, they certainly have plenty of nasty things to
say about us, and about me in fact. All which I hope I answered. They do
this publicly from time to time as well. Which we do not. And we wish them
all the best, privately and publicly. We operate in two very different
conceptual planes. I am not sure how best to describe this, but it is
certainly not competition.

The dates you suggest should be fine from here. I have been trying to
organize my own trip to the East Coast but distractions keep popping up.
And while I would like to visit a good friend recently here from Dallas,
that's at last as far as fall. So late May or June will probably be our
best bet. But if we can be of assistance in the interim, please let me
know. By the way, your fellow Emre here is a classmate of one of our
reporters. This might prove useful in some way.

And give my regards to Reva. I enjoyed our dinner very much. And also say
hi to George.

Best


David



________________________________
From: Meredith Friedman [mfriedman@stratfor.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 4:50 PM
To: David Judson
Subject: Follow up from STRATFOR and visit


Hello David -

Reva is back from her trip to Turkey and has filled me in on her various
meetings. She really enjoyed her time in Turkey and said she loves it the
most of any country she's visited yet...and she gets around quite a bit.

We discussed the issues you've been facing regarding a collaboration with
us and I fully understand. It seems out best approach is to have several
collaborations in Turkey so that we get all points of view and do not
alienate one political perspective over the other. Since we aim for
objectivity that is fine with us and I will pursue that goal. I understand
from Reva that you would be fine with us having several partners in Turkey
as well. Please let me know if that is not the case.

We can move forward any way you would suggest. I have yet to approach the
other news organization Reva suggested but will email them today to begin
a discussion with them about a collaboration as well. We do not plan to
publicize these collaborations anyway, so if you are comfortable moving
forward on our partnership with Hurriyet we can do so or we can wait until
and do them both around the same time. Again, at this stage we are not
looking for you to redistribute our content at all but for more of an
exchange of information, research and some analysis between our analysts
and your journalists.

George and I are planning a visit to Istanbul in early June and I wanted
to give you a heads up to see if you will be there at that time? I'm
thinking somewhere between May 31- June 5. Please let me know if you will
be in Istanbul then so we can meet up again.

I look forward to your reply.

Best regards,

Meredith


Meredith Friedman
VP, Communications
STRATFOR
www.stratfor.com<http://www.stratfor.com/>
512 744 4301 - office
512 426 5107 - cell
<mailto:PR@Stratfor.com>
","2010-03-19 22:15:27",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/275566_re-follow-up-from-stratfor-and-visit-.html","","","david.judson@tdn.com.tr",""
276754,"RE: Notes on the meeting with confederation source - Sabah PoC
","   Emre - this is perfect and exactly why we need you working with our
   confederation partners. I think I understand why your relationship with
   Alparslan at Sabah is more personal and cordial than with Guler at HDN
   because Alparslan is, at root, a journalist who follows the issues and
   knows the details even though he also runs the shop. Remember, Guler is a
   business development manager so she's not the person who knows the details
   of international issues as say Taylan or one of the other journalists
   does. Gulan's role is sort of like mine or Jen's where she is there to
   oversee and manage the relationship and make sure questions get answered
   but I think you need to still develop a stronger personal relationship
   with Taylan and the other guy who I met and whose name I keep forgetting.
    
   I would suggest having a lunch with Gulan and Taylan and going through the
   same type of discussion with them on how we can help them more. Also
   please thank them for the great article they put out from the interview
   with George on our last day there. Did you see it? I think Alparslan is at
   the same point David Judson was at when we arrived there - they want the
   collaboration but realize there's more to it than one managing editor can
   handle himself and you worked through that problem with him at your lunch
   and I expect now he will find that very smart person to do the actual work
   under his supervision. David mentioned they have a very smart woman there
   - Bilcek or some such name - and I think she's been reading STRATFOR on
   her own for a while. But let's see who he chooses.
    
   We may have you visit with our other partners in Georgia and Azerbaijan at
   some future point if needed. Pity you don't speak Russian...our APA editor
   in chief doesn't speak English - just Azeri and Russian. But you'd manage
   fine with a translator. Anyway I am very pleased with the outcome of your
   lunch meeting. It's what is needed to make these partnerships effective
   and valuable for them as we discussed on our call yesterday.
    
   Now let's see if they follow through and get that new POC at Sabah.
    
   Meredith
    
    

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Emre Dogru [mailto:emre.dogru@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 8:15 AM
   To: Meredith Friedman
   Cc: Jennifer Richmond; scott stewart
   Subject: Notes on the meeting with confederation source - Sabah PoC
   I had a lunch today with our Sabah PoC Alparslan and a to-be diplomacy
   correspondent Mehmet Ali (who currently hangs out with Alparslan as a part
   of his training).

   We talked about recent political developments and than ways to improve the
   cooperation between Sabah and Stratfor. I explained him in detail what we
   do, what kind of information we collect and how we analyze them. We talked
   about the differences between Stratfor's work and journalism, but also the
   valuable information that we can share. I gave examples (such as Gaza
   flotilla crisis, Kyrgyzstan etc.) to show him how we do a great job in
   both collecting and analyzing information especially from the regions
   where Sabah may face difficulties in getting insight. I also advised him
   to ask Stratfor analysts' opinions on a variety of issues. I also talked
   him about our plans to build a new website to publish articles from other
   sources and how this could help Sabah to increase its international
   profile. I told him that we've partners in other countries, such as
   Azerbaijan and Georgia, from which we can get information that Sabah asks
   for. I think he has a much better idea now on what issues/countries Sabah
   can benefit from Stratfor and he seemed very interested in getting these
   information from us.

   I asked him his opinion on how things go on Sabah's side. He says he
   thinks Sabah's mechanism (in cooperation with Stratfor) does not work as
   efficient as it should be. This is because he is usually out of the office
   and cannot communicate with the people who work in the office. For
   instance last time I called him to ask whether Turkey used UAVs he was on
   a trip to Cyprus and it took more time than usual to get me the
   information. He will probably find a smart-cookie who will manage our
   relation with different desks of Sabah because the main problem that they
   face now is the lack of cooperation among their departments. He says all
   departments of Sabah will be notified about our role with Sabah, and they
   will provide all information anytime to this person (who Alparslan will
   choose) who will ask on behalf of us. This will be especially useful when
   we ask something that can be found in Ankara. Of course, Alparslan will
   supervise the mechanism and make sure that it works well.

   One thing I've noticed in meetings with HDN and Sabah people is that two
   things help to get our sources' attention. First, is to show during
   discussions that I'm personally on top of international events. Second is
   to explain in detail what Stratfor does and what we can provide them. I
   can also say that I've a more personal and cordial relationship with
   Alparslan now (more than HDN PoC Guler).

   Let me know if you've questions.

 --
 Emre Dogru

 STRATFOR
 Cell:  +90.532.465.7514
 Fixed: +1.512.279.9468
 emre.dogru@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2010-06-22 15:43:11",1,"2012-02-29 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/276754_re-notes-on-the-meeting-with-confederation-source-sabah-poc-.html","","","richmond@stratfor.com,scott.stewart@stratfor.com,emre.dogru@stratfor.com",""
277400,"Please invoice and charge credit card Booz Allen Hamilton $20,790 - renewal (paid $19,800 last year)
","","2011-03-29 16:02:55",1,"2012-02-27 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/277400_please-invoice-and-charge-credit-card-booz-allen-hamilton-20.html","wright@stratfor.com","","oconnor@stratfor.com,george.friedman@stratfor.com,Don.kuykendall@stratfor.com,cs@stratfor.com,kelly.tryce@stratfor.com,rob.bassetti@stratfor.com,holly.sparkman@stratfor.com,fernando.jaimes@stratfor.com","attach/17/17225_Stratfor Servi.pdf"
280201,"RE: New Sabah POCs
","   Great thanks Emre. Hopefully we'll have time to meet these editors too
   when we're in Istanbul in November...

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Emre Dogru [mailto:emre.dogru@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 6:55 AM
   To: Jennifer Richmond; Meredith Friedman
   Subject: New Sabah POCs
   Our POC from Sabah Alparslan Akkus asked me to pass along the new POC
   list. All three are foreign news editors of Sabah and as Alparslan says,
   they will have more time to read and summarize our material to be used by
   Sabah as well as to provide information that we demand as soon as
   possible. The first one on the list, Sule Guner, will be my main POC. I
   will have a meeting with them at their earliest convenience.

   Please let me know when they are added to our subscription list so that I
   can check it with them. Let me know if you've questions.

   Thanks

   SULE GU:NER
   Sule.guner@sabah.com.tr

   BERCAN TUTAR
   Bercan.tutar@sabah.com.tr

   OKAN UMRUK
   Okan.umruk@sabah.com.tr

 --
 Emre Dogru

 STRATFOR
 Cell:  +90.532.465.7514
 Fixed: +1.512.279.9468
 emre.dogru@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2010-09-21 17:33:03",1,"2012-03-01 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/280201_re-new-sabah-pocs-.html","","","richmond@stratfor.com,emre.dogru@stratfor.com",""
281798,"STRATFOR MONITOR- ARGENTINA - Falkland Islands oil exploration
","   Reports from Malvina government authorities say that the companies Border
   and Southern Ltd and BHP Billiton are prepared to start exploring the
   Southern waters of the Falkland islands as soon as possible.  They are
   even evaluating the possibility of bringing a new oil platform or drilling
   boat to the area in the event they are unable to use the Ocean Guardian
   (the drilling boat that caused the recent rift among the govts).  Through
   these measures, Border and Southern Ltd and BHP Billiton will be the
   latest companies to join oil exploration activities in the islands (after
   Desire Petroleum and Rockopper Exploration), which are currently in waters
   North of the islands.  Desire and Rockopper are the companies
   that contracted the Ocean Guardian from Diamond Offshore Drilling Intl;
   Billiton could also use the Ocean Guardian. 

   Island authorities have said that drilling in southern waters is a more
   delicate issue environmentally speaking.  However, according to their
   studies, oil companies are saying that their activities will not interfere
   with commercial fishing in the area (the principal form of income for the
   islands).  Some experts are saying that the two drilling areas are an
   underwater continuation of the Andes. They are also located very close to
   the well that YPF wants to explore in Argentine waters.  The expert also
   said that the exploratory phase in southern waters would take about 70
   days, though he said that he could not estimate a start date given the
   variables over equipment availability.

    
","2010-03-05 16:38:28",1,"2012-02-27 22:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/281798_stratfor-monitor-argentina-falkland-islands-oil-exploration-.html","","","zucha@stratfor.com,meredith.friedman@stratfor.com,Howard.Davis@nov.com,Pete.Miller@nov.com,Andrew.bruce@nov.com,David.rigel@nov.com,loren.singletary@nov.com",""
282635,"[alpha] Insight processing reminder
","   Anyone sending insight through to the list needs to remember the new
   coding we have scoring everything on an A-F scale.  I am pasting the
   directions again below.  Pay particular attention to the directions under
   item credibility.

   Also, Mikey made a good point the other day.  Often we will task a source
   asking for feedback on a particular OS piece.  When we do that please also
   include the piece being referenced so that it completes the insight. 
   Sometimes we don't know what the source is referencing, making it
   confusing.

   Finally, where possible its also a good idea to include the original
   (scrub them where needed) questions for the same reason mentioned above on
   the OS pieces.  Where that is not possible and where necessary, please
   give a general idea on the tasking to better understand the sources
   references.  Also, when you include the (scrubbed) questions - and again,
   I know that's not always appropriate - it helps others trying to learn the
   sourcing and insight process to learn how we task sources.

   SOURCE: code
   ATTRIBUTION: this is what we should say if we use this info in a
   publication, e.g. STRATFOR source/source in the medical industry/source on
   the ground, etc
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: this is where we put the more concrete details of the
   source for our internal consumption so we can better understand the
   source's background and ability to make the assessments in the insight.
   PUBLICATION: Yes or no.  If you put yes it doesn't mean that we will
   publish it, but only that we can publish it.
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A-F. A being the best and F being the worst.  This
   grades the source overall - access to information, timeliness,
   availability, etc.  In short, how good is this source?
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: A-F.  A = we can take this info to the bank; B = Good
   insight but maybe not entirely precise; C = Insight is only partially
   true; D = There may be some interest in the insight, but it is mostly
   false or just pure speculation; F = Likely to be disinformation.
   SPECIAL HANDLING: often this is \"none\" but it may be something like, \"if
   you use this we need to be sure not to mention the part about XXX in
   thepublication\" or any other special notes
   SOURCE HANDLER: the person who can take follow-up questions and
   communicate with the source

   Remember that you are not limited to only putting down the letter score
   and are encouraged to give insight into WHY you are picking that score.  I
   know we are often in a hurry, but this is very helpful for everyone
   understanding biases, uniqueness and other factors that make the insight
   pertinent (or not).

   If there are any questions, please ask.

   Jen

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-08-11 23:48:03",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/282635_-alpha-insight-processing-reminder-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
286265,"FW: monitor guidance
","11","2009-07-21 02:01:51",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/286265_fw-monitor-guidance-.html","","","zucha@stratfor.com","attach/20/20529_Eurasia.doc
attach/20/20531_mesa.doc
attach/20/20532_Africa.doc
attach/20/20534_East Asia.doc
attach/20/20537_briefers.doc
attach/20/20539_Latam.doc"
287636,"FW: monitor guidance
","28","2009-07-17 22:17:57",1,"2012-02-28 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/287636_fw-monitor-guidance-.html","","","hooper@stratfor.com","attach/20/20529_Eurasia.doc
attach/20/20531_mesa.doc
attach/20/20532_Africa.doc
attach/20/20534_East Asia.doc
attach/20/20537_briefers.doc
attach/20/20539_Latam.doc"
287965,"RE: INSIGHT - IRAN - Delegation to Geneva - IR2 - one more thought
","   One other thing -- from a branding perspective if we're serious about
   Quality, Status and Mystique I think showing too much of our inner
   workings devalues our Mystique. People don't know how we collect our
   intelligence and that's one of the cool, mysterious things about STRATFOR.
   Seeing raw intelligence come in would be cool for a few weeks but then it
   would become another expected product and we lose our mystique a little on
   source collection.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Meredith Friedman
   Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 9:55 AM
   To: scott stewart; friedman@att.blackberry.net; 'Darryl O'Connor'; 'Aaric
   Eisenstein'; 'Peter Zeihan'; 'George Friedman';
   maverick.fisher@stratfor.com
   Cc: 'Grant Perry'; 'Richard Parker'; 'darryl'
   Subject: RE: INSIGHT - IRAN - Delegation to Geneva - IR2
   Thanks, Stick, for laying this out. I have to say I support your position
   on this. As you mentioned yesterday, our sources would be talking to
   Reuters or other news organizations if they wanted their ideas published
   directly (even as anonymous sources) but they are not - they are talking
   to us because they know we protect not only their identity but use what
   they say in a careful way in our analysis or as sitreps.
    
   On the reverse side, if we blacked out every category of our source
   descriptions and coding it would be silly and make people wonder if we
   weren't making them up ourselves. We already show a lot of leg by sharing
   our internal intelligence guidance with our customers - that is sexy and
   something that makes us unique. I agree we would lose some of our best
   sources for intelligence if we began publishing what they send us in raw
   format no matter how carefully we try to disguise their identity.
    
   Meredith

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: scott stewart [mailto:scott.stewart@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 9:43 AM
   To: friedman@att.blackberry.net; 'Darryl O'Connor'; 'Aaric Eisenstein';
   'Peter Zeihan'; 'George Friedman'; maverick.fisher@stratfor.com
   Cc: 'Grant Perry'; 'Richard Parker'; 'darryl'; 'Meredith Friedman'
   Subject: RE: INSIGHT - IRAN - Delegation to Geneva - IR2
   OK, I have taken 24 hours to relax, calm down and think about this
   concept.
    
   Here are my thoughts.
    
    
   1) This may be a decent marketing idea, but in my opinion it is a terrible
   intelligence idea. In addition to the point I made yesterday about many of
   our sources not wanting to be paraded into the spotlight, it is also
   important to remember that we have sources in places like Iran, Syria,
   China and Russia who could be traced if we allowed that much of their
   writings and information to be published in raw form.  Allowing an
   intelligence service to isolate all the source reporting coming from that
   country would be very attractive to them and they would certainly attempt
   to determine who we are talking to, and who is talking to us, on a regular
   basis.
    
   We have an ethical responsible to do our best to protect our people - and
   from a purely selfish perspective if one of our people is identified and
   then whacked, arrested, or cowed by the authorities into no longer
   reporting, we can quickly lose an asset that have taken us years to
   develop.  This will hurt our publishing operations, and will not be
   sustainable in the long run.  We need to protect our most valuable -- and
   in most cases, our most sensitive -- sources for the future of the
   company. 
    
   2) We could do something like this with less-sensitive sources who agree
   to be published directly, but those less-sensitive sources will lack the
   sex appeal that Aaric is looking for and that will make this a rather
   bland product offering.
    
   3) Based on 1 and 2, it is my recommendation that we continue to handle
   insight as it is. That is, using it to inform our analysis and to make
   sure our published work remains very strong, and our CIS customers stay
   informed.  We can also continue to use critical pieces of insight directly
   as the basis for sitreps.  
    
   I have calmed down from yesterday, but I still feel very strongly that
   continuing to handle insight as we do is the best course of action for us
   as an intelligence company.
    
    
    

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: George Friedman [mailto:friedman@att.blackberry.net]
   Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:31 PM
   To: scott stewart; Darryl O'Connor; 'Aaric Eisenstein'; 'Peter Zeihan';
   George Friedman; maverick.fisher@stratfor.com
   Cc: 'Grant Perry'; 'Richard Parker'; 'darryl'
   Subject: Re: INSIGHT - IRAN - Delegation to Geneva - IR2
   We need to sit down and consider this. Sources we can't use are useless.
   Promiscuous use of sensitive sources is dangerous. This is an ongoing
   dilemma of intelligence. Since we aren't journalists there may be ways to
   deal with this. We need a policy. Stick, please put out your thoughts on
   this and then we will follow up. In the meantime we fold sensitive
   intelligence into analyses or sitreps on a case by case basis.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"scott stewart\"
   Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:18:26 -0400
   To: 'Darryl O'Connor'<oconnor@stratfor.com>; 'Aaric
   Eisenstein'<eisenstein@stratfor.com>; 'Peter
   Zeihan'<peter.zeihan@stratfor.com>; 'George
   Friedman'<gfriedman@stratfor.com>; <maverick.fisher@stratfor.com>
   Subject: RE: INSIGHT - IRAN - Delegation to Geneva - IR2

   This is what I said to Aaric Monday. We really need to protect our people
   and our sources.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Darryl O'Connor [mailto:oconnor@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 12:05 PM
   To: 'Aaric Eisenstein'; 'scott stewart'; 'Peter Zeihan'; 'George
   Friedman'; maverick.fisher@stratfor.com
   Cc: 'Grant Perry'; 'Richard Parker'; 'darryl'
   Subject: RE: INSIGHT - IRAN - Delegation to Geneva - IR2
   my concern:
    
   does the source have website access?  let's assume so.  would they
   have the piss scared out of them to see their own words on our website?
   enough piss scared out of them to not want to be a source anymore?  
    
   this is not really my area and not trying to horn in on someone else's
   territory, but i thought it wouldn't hurt to ask the question.  
    
   over and out.
     

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Aaric Eisenstein [mailto:eisenstein@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:55 AM
   To: 'scott stewart'; 'Peter Zeihan'; 'George Friedman';
   maverick.fisher@stratfor.com
   Cc: 'Grant Perry'; 'Richard Parker'; 'darryl'
   Subject: FW: INSIGHT - IRAN - Delegation to Geneva - IR2
   Can we publish the Insight below - redacted on source of course - as a
   test of the \"raw\" format as opposed to putting it into an article?  It'll
   be interesting to see what kind of feedback we get on the new format. 
   This Insight as good flavor in its raw form.
    
   Aaric S. Eisenstein
   Chief Innovation Officer
   STRATFOR
   512-744-4308
   512-744-4334 fax
   aaric.eisenstein@stratfor.com
   Follow us on http://Twitter.com/stratfor
    

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Peter Zeihan [mailto:zeihan@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:51 AM
   To: Aaron Colvin
   Cc: Secure List
   Subject: Re: INSIGHT - IRAN - Delegation to Geneva - IR2
   interesting -- they've put in a clod because they don't think he's smart
   enough to do anything

   would hate to be the clod

   clods are disposable

   Aaron Colvin wrote:

     SOURCE CODE: IR2

     PUBLICATION: Not Applicable

     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Tehran-based freelance journalist/analyst who is
     well plugged into the system

     ATTRIBUTION: Not Applicable

     SOURCE RELIABILITY: B

     ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2

     SPECIAL HANDLING: Not Applicable

     DISTRIBUTION: Secure

     SOURCE HANDLER: Kamran

     I think the composition is very interesting. Jalili is no seasoned
     diplomat but he is someone both SL and Sepah could trust since his lower
     intellectual and political stature makes it less likely that he shows
     any independent streaks on tactical matters-- as someone like Larijani
     could have. The other two are career diplomats-technocrats with
     extensive knowledge of their respective fields. Jalili needs them for
     advice on legal niceties and for general political considerations. The
     third negotiator's presence is in indeed interesting. As you have
     noted, the  presence of someone from the Minstry of Economic Affairs
     serves to show Iran's seriouness in the talks. But it is just for the
     show as Iran knows that the talks will fail.
","2009-10-01 17:06:58",1,"2012-02-27 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/287965_re-insight-iran-delegation-to-geneva-ir2-one-more-thought-.html","","","mfriedman@stratfor.com,gfriedman@stratfor.com,oconnor@stratfor.com,scott.stewart@stratfor.com,darryl.oconnor@stratfor.com,eisenstein@stratfor.com,friedman@att.blackberry.net,peter.zeihan@stratfor.com,maverick.fisher@stratfor.com,Richard.parker@stratfor.com,grant.perry@stratfor.com",""
290339,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
","   this dude really gives the impression that Moscow calls the shots in Kiev

   so basically, Med gets pissed b/c Timo is blowing Putin and not him, so he
   whines to Putin and says drop the B and get behind Yanu like me. Putin
   says fine, Yanu gets excited and oversteps his boundaries, and now Putin
   is like fix this shit Med and Med is like okay, but we dont know what Med
   is actually gonna do to slap Yanu around

   so what's the couterargument to this? Does Russia really have this much
   influence over the situation?  this is something we need to address in
   ukraine reassessment

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111

   CODE: UA111
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   HANDLER: Lauren

    

   Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
   But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
   this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
   begin with.

    

   You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
   power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
   Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
   solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
   Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
   easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
   her in trouble and arrested.

    

   But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
   respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
   made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
   deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
   Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
   the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
   military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
   it had been pushing for.

    

   So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
   the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
   to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
   demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.

    

   Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
   to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
   against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
   will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-14 20:55:23",1,"2012-02-28 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/290339_re-alpha-insight-ukraine-moscow-kiev-spat-ua111-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
290835,"MUST READ: New GV Process
","   Beginning today, we will put in place a new GV monitoring procedure.
    
   1. Watch officers will continue to post items to the alerts list to flag
   them as potential GV monitors. 
    
   2. Briefers will be responsible for sorting through those alerts (among
   other material), and will post those items that actually require monitors
   to a GV Folder on Clearspace
   (http://clearspace.stratfor.com/community/analysts/gv). That folder will
   be a central list of GV requests.
    
   3. Analysts will then produce GV Monitors for the requests in the folder
   and post them to the analyst list as usual.
    
   4. After any necessary discussion of the monitor is resolved on the
   list, the analyst will post the final GV Monitor as a reply to the request
   in the GV folder.
    
   5. A briefer will move completed GV requests from main GV folder into an
   archive folder, which will be a central repository for past GVs. The
   object is to keep that GV folder as near to empty as possible.
    
    
   This process incorporates briefers better into the GV process, and places
   on them the burden of sifting through the many items flagged for GV by the
   Watch Officers (who should keep up the good work). As GV monitors will
   only be written when requested by at least one briefer, we will avoid
   producing monitors that are not ultimately sent to any client (which
   currently happens).
    
   If analysts see items they think the briefers missed or underestimated the
   significance of, they should, of course, bring them to the briefers'
   attention. And briefers will continue to ask whether analysts think some
   developments are important enough to warrant a GV. This process is not
   meant to replace individual communication.
    
   This GV folder will give everyone a clear picture of which GV requests are
   outstanding, allowing better prioritization; and it will alert us when
   there is a backlog.
    
   Analysts will not need to check the GV folder constantly; they can receive
   email notifications whenever a new item is posted (go to
   http://clearspace.stratfor.com/community/analysts/gv and select \"Receive
   email notifications\" in the \"Actions & Notifications\" box on the right) or
   opt to use the space's RSS feed (also in the A&R box). GV requests that
   remain unanswered for 3 hours will automatically generate an email alert
   to the secure list.
    
   We are continuing to work on ways to improve the GV system. Please contact
   me with any questions.
    
    
   Joseph de Feo
   Briefer
   STRATFOR
   T: 703-469-2182 x2185
   F: 703-469-2189
   defeo@stratfor.com 
   _______________________
   www.stratfor.com
   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
","2007-10-22 13:45:12",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/290835_must-read-new-gv-process-.html","defeo@stratfor.com","","secure@stratfor.com",""
291885,"MUST READ -- Welcome to the secure list
","   Hi everyone,
    
   As we are shifting the way we operate and adding new overseas monitors to
   the Stratfor team, we need to also change our own procedures to ensure our
   own efficiency, as well as the protection of our clients.
    
   Currently, the bulk of information in the company flows through the
   analysts@stratfor.com list, which the analysts, interns, writers,
   briefers, etc. belong to. The monitors need to be able to view the
   information flowing through the list to pick up on what issues we're
   looking at, see what information has already been posted and gradually get
   a feel of what's geopolitically significant. At the same time, it is
   unnecessary for monitors to be exposed to any client-related material that
   makes it to the list, including GV monitors and client reports/projects.
    
   To resolve this issue, we have created a new list called
   secure@stratfor.com. This list is to only be used for CLIENT-RELATED
   MATERIAL and anything else that should be shielded from the intern and
   monitor pools. From now on, DO NOT post anything client-related to the
   analysts@stratfor.com list. Only analysts (from geopol, public policy and
   security), briefers, writers and relevant managers belong to the secure
   list.
    
   Please discipline yourself to send client-related material to the secure
   list. This new system will help us manage the content of the analysts list
   and protect our clients' interests.
    
   A full list of the people on the secure list is added below. Let myself
   and IT know if someone is missing.
    
   Thanks,
    
   Reva Bhalla
   Strategic Forecasting Inc.
   Director of Geopolitical Analysis
   T: (512) 744-4316
   F: (512) 744-4334
   www.stratfor.com
    

      
     Rodger Baker
     Reva Bhalla
     Peter Zeihan
     Kamran Bokhari
     Mark Schroeder
     Jen Richmond
     Nate Hughes
     Lina Reznikov
      
     Amy Dalton
     Anya Alfano
     Joseph de Feo
      
     Bart Mongoven
     Kathy Morson
     Sarah Campbell
     Dan Kornfield
      
     Andrew Teekell
     Dan Burgess
      
      
     Marla Dial
     Walt Howerton
     Michael McCullar
     Lori Slaugenhoupt
     Les McLain
     Robin Blackburn
     Maverick Fisher
     Rachel Swindle
     Jeremy Edwards
      
     Fred Burton
     Mike Parks
     Scott Stewart
     Ron Moore
     George Friedman
","2006-11-15 22:11:41",1,"2012-02-27 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/291885_must-read-welcome-to-the-secure-list-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","","secure@stratfor.com",""
299775,"RE: CLIENT PROJECT - MUST READ
","   Here's some guidance on the industry trends/market conditions point:
    1. issues concerning petroleum supply/price (as stated) -- this is the
       biggest item to note, especially as it affects MNCs
    2. nationaliziation of oil (anything that might make it harder for the
       chem company to get petroleum, which is their major input)
    3. increasing regulation of chemicals/products or talk of increasing
       regulation (health and environmental concerns, or ways to block MNCs
       from selling things in your AOR)
    4. increasing regulation of industrial facilities or talk of increasing
       regulation (anything to make it harder for a facility to operate or
       for a new facility to be built)
    5. product recalls and import/export issues of products (like the mattel
       fiasco in china last year)
    6. overall treatment of MNCs in your AOR
    
    
    
    
    

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Reva Bhalla [mailto:bhalla@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:46 PM
   To: secure@stratfor.com
   Subject: CLIENT PROJECT - MUST READ
   Importance: High
   Another MATCH fishing task that's going to require input from the whole
   team.  This one is due MARCH 4, at 1pm CST to Joe deFeo (cc me). No edit
   required.
    
   Stay tuned for more guidance on this as the project develops. Read the
   tasking order carefully.
    
   TASK:
    
   The client asked for BRIEF bullet points on current and potential risks
   facing the chemicals industry in general, any current or potential risks
   facing the following companies specifically:

   Formosa Plastics Corporation
   CMX
   Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
   Lyondell
   Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc.
   Chemtura Corporation
   ICC Industries
   Symrise
   Gen-Tek
    
    

   This is a large number of companies, and we will limit aspects of the
   research to keep this manageable for us and the client.

    

   Final product should include the following:

    

    1. Overview of current or potential threats facing the chemicals industry
       in general. (TO BE DONE BY PUBLIC POLICY TEAM -- Kathy in lead)

         a. market conditions, industry trends

   b.      NGOs, labor

    2. Threats facing the above companies or their main products specifically
       (please include brief lists of major products in the final research
       paper). (LIST WILL BE COMPILED AND POLISHED BY RESEARCH TEAM; Items a,
       b, c below will be compiled by the Analysts. Public policy will be
       taking the lead on a lot of this, but the regional analysts will also
       need to provide any relevant bullets on the points below)
   PUBLIC POLICY TEAM -- Will need to provide guidance on what kinds of
   industry trends and market conditions would be most relevant for the
   chemical industry.
     a. Current or potential threats from market conditions, industry trends
        directly affecting the companies (e.g., petroleum supply and price)
     b. Current or potential threats from NGOs, labor campaigns facing the
        companies or their products specifically (e.g., campaigns against PVC
        affect Formosa) 
     c. Current security threats; client only needs to be aware of any known
        security issues facing the companies. Quick notes only, no
        predictions/assessments needed. Do not spend a large amount of time
        on security.

   FOR RESEARCH TEAM --  First find out each company's most important
   products; be on the lookout especially for the following substances/terms:

   .   plastics, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or vinyl, plastic additives (such
   as Bisphenol A or phthalates), polycarbonate plastics

   .   flame retardants (brominated flame retardants, polybrominated diphenyl
   ethers or PBDEs; e.g., Octa-BDE and Deca-BDE)

   .   perfluorinated chemicals (also called non-stick chemicals, PFOS and
   PFOA)

   .   Substances involving chlorine, fluorine, bromine

    

   Do not spend a large amount of time on a company if there seem to be no
   specific threats to it.

    

   To help determine NGO and labor threats against these specific companies,
   we have researched the facility locations for each. The full list can be
   found below.

    

   The research team will be sending out a well-organized list of the
   products each of these companies produce so you can have that background
   information handy.

    

   .         Formosa Plastics Corporation (biggest PVC resins manufacturer
   worldwide; many subsidiaries, focus on the Taiwanese parent and Formosa
   Plastics USA)

    

   LOCATIONS:

    

   EAST ASIA - Taiwan

   NORTH AMERICA - US

    

   .         CMX (previously Schoor De Palma; not sure what chemicals work it
   does)

    

   LOCATIONS:

    

   NORTH AMERICA - New Jersey, Arizona, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland,
   Florida, Nevada and Mexico

    

   .         Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (major supplier of atmospheric
   and specialty gases [e.g., hydrogen] for industrial, healthcare, and
   commercial use; semiconductor materials; natural gas liquefaction;
   manufacturing locations worldwide)

   .          

   LOCATIONS:

    

   AFRICA - South Africa

   LATAM - Brazil, Mexico, Trinidad and Tobago

   NORTH AMERICA - Canada

   EAST ASIA - China, HK, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Taiwan,
   Japan, Thailand

   SOUTH ASIA - India

   EUROPE - Belgium, Czech Repub, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy,
   Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, UK

   MIDEAST - Algeria, Turkey, Israel, Qatar, UAE

    

    

   .         Lyondell (Houston-based; big producer of ethylenes,
   polyproylenes -- also diacetyl [popcorn lung chemical], I think; refinery
   operations)

    

   LOCATIONS:

    

   NORTH AMERICA - US

   LATAM - Brazil

   EUROPE - Netherlands, France

   EAST ASIA - China, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan

   SOUTH ASIA - India

   .         Rockwood Specialties Group, Inc. (U.S.-based manufacturer of
   specialty chemicals, among other things; focus on the chem., additives,
   coatings divisions)

    

   LOCATIONS:

    

   EUROPE - France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden,
   Switzerland, UK, Austria, Czech Republic

    

   EAST ASIA- Australia, China, Singapore, Taiwan

    

   LATAM- Brazil, Mexico, Chile

    

   NORTH AMERICA- US, Canada

    

   MESA - India, Turkey,

    

   AFRICA - South Africa

    

   .         Chemtura Corporation (U.S. company; makes plastic additives,
   flame retardants, fluorinated compounds -- big trouble, all)

    

   LOCATIONS:

    

   EAST ASIA - China, Australia, South Korea, Thailand, Singapore

   LATAM - Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Ecuador

   EURASIA - Czech Rep, France, Greece, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan,
   Moldova, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia,
   Switzerland, UK, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Belarus

   MESA - Turkey, India, Saudi Arabia

    

   (to check what kind of activities in each country -
   http://www.chemtura.com/corporate/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=7f0597b9cc85c010VgnVCM10000052d7010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=7f0597b9cc85c010VgnVCM10000052d7010aRCRD&vgnextfmt=default)

    

    

   .         ICC Industries (pharma chemicals and others; might still be
   involved in generic drug manufacturing)

   LOCATIONS:

    

   EURASIA - United Kingdom, Hungary, Romania, Czech Rep, Slovakia, Russia
   (production facilities); Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Belgium,
   Netherlands, Poland Serbia (trading offices)

    

   EAST ASIA - China (production facilities); Indonesia, Japan (trading
   offices)

    

   MESA - Israel (production facilities); Turkey (Trading offices)

    

    

   .         Symrise (German -- food additives and fragrance; what
   specifically?)

    

   LOCATIONS:

    

   LATAM - Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand,
   Venezuela

   EURASIA - Poland, Russia, Netherlands, Ukraine, UK, Italy, Spain

   MESA - India, Turkey

   EAST ASIA - Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand

   AFRICA - South Africa

    

    

   .         Gen-Tek (pharma/personal care chemicals, fuel additives)

    

   LOCATIONS:

    

   NORTH AMERICA - US, Canada

   LATAM - Brazil

    

    
","2008-02-28 02:15:27",1,"2012-02-27 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/299775_re-client-project-must-read-.html","morson@stratfor.com","","secure@stratfor.com",""
309308,"Re: FOR COMMENT - Conclusion to Egypt monograph - Contemporary
	Challenges: Life After Mubarak
","   Hola Reva,
   Can we go ahead and edit the for comment version of the monograph? Thanks!

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:22:40 PM
   Subject: FOR COMMENT - Conclusion to Egypt monograph -
   Contemporary        Challenges: Life After Mubarak

    

   Contemporary Challenges: Life After Mubarak

    

   Early 2011 was a dramatic period in modern Egyptian history. The
   mainstream mediaa**s narrative on the Arab Spring portrayed popular
   uprisings as the driving force that swept away the regime of Hosni Mubarak
   and opened the door to democracy. But a closer examination indicates that
   the rules of the past still apply. Concentration of power, physical
   isolation from the outside world, and dependence upon outside forces for
   economic security remain the trifecta that drives Egyptian society and
   governmental development.

   To understand the Arab Spring one must first understand the factors that
   led to it. This is a discussion that must begin, not with the aspirations
   of those that protested in Tahrir square, but with the strategic
   imperatives of the military, the true vanguard of the Egyptian state.

   Nassera**s plan to elevate the military as the vanguard of society worked,
   but in years after Nassera**s death the military itself shifted position.
   Rather than partnering with the Soviets to create a regional sphere of
   influence, the military evolved its vanguard position in Egyptian society
   into a system of ossified control. The state still owned nearly everything
   of worth, but it was managed by and for the benefit of the military brass.
   Everything from banks to import/export to agriculture -- already heavily
   influenced by the military under the vanguard system -- was consolidated
   into a series of military oligarchies. Rather than working to elevate
   Egypt economically, the military oligarchs mostly divvied up the local
   spoils and lived large.

   This was a stable system from the late-1970s until the mid-2000s.
   Egypta**s shielded geography limited the ability of any international
   economic interest to challenge the military staffsa** personal fiefdoms.
   Egypta**s partnership with the Americans mitigated international pressure
   of all sorts, and in many ways even Egypta**s ostracism from the Arab
   world due to its treaty with Israel allowed Egypta**s generals to rule
   Egypt however they saw fit.

   As (now deposed) President Mubarak aged, however, an internal challenge
   arose to the military oligarchy in the form of the former presidenta**s
   son, Gamal Mubarak, who wanted to transform Egypt from a military
   oligarchy into a more traditional Egyptian dynasty. Doing this required
   the breaking of the militarya**s hold on the economy. Gamal and his allies
   -- often with the express assistance of international institutions like
   the World Bank -- worked to a**privatizea** Egyptian state assets to
   themselves. This process was a direct threat to the militarya**s political
   and economic position at the top of Egyptian society. The military also
   viewed Gamal, who never completed his military service, as a political
   neophyte, incapable of understanding and managing the countrya**s security
   imperatives.

   The result was the a**Arab Springa**. In the months leading up to the
   January demonstrations, Egypta**s top generals were delivering very stern
   ultimatums to the president to abandon any hope of passing the reins to
   Gamal while looking at their options to unseat Mubarak via more
   unconventional means. The military strategically positioned itself early
   on in the demonstration as the honest broker and guardian of the
   protesters, taking care to avoid a violent crackdown on the demonstrators
   while Mubaraka**s internal security forces were vilified on the streets.
   Such a light hand was not due to lack of capacity, but due to lack of
   need. The demonstrations provided the generals with the means to dismantle
   the Mubarak legacy, the biggest liability to their own livelihood, while
   maintaining the paramount role of the military. 

   But perhaps the most central indication that the a**revolutiona** was
   misconstrued comes from the participation levels. On the day that Mubarak
   ultimately stepped down the protests reached their peak. By the most
   aggressive estimate only 750,000 people -- less than 1 percent of the
   population of densely populated Egypt a** took to the streets. In true
   revolutions such as that which overthrew Communism in Central Europe or
   the shah in Iran, the proportion regularly breached 10 percent and on
   occasions even touched 50 percent. In short, Egypta**s Arab Spring was a
   palace coup, not a revolution.

   But the militarya**s Mubarak removal strategy did not come without risks.
   The military would much prefer to return to the days of ruling behind the
   scenes while leaving day to day governing to a civilian government that
   ultimately answers to the generals. But the political opening that the
   military helped to create has also greatly complicated matters: the
   military must now employ a much more complex balancing act at home to
   altogether keep the civilian government impotent, the opposition divided
   and foreign funding flowing toward a half-hearted democratic transition.

   With trade and tourism severely curtailed as a result of Egypta**s
   political unrest, the military must place extra effort in keeping up
   democratic appearances with the west now that the country is once against
   dependent upon the economic largess of outside powers. In dealing with the
   opposition at home, the military is no stranger to divide-and-conquer
   tactics and has maintained a robust intelligence service to keep tabs on
   already severely divided opposition. But the signs of strain are already
   showing, as the military now needs to learn how to manage an
   Islamist-concentrated opposition in parliament as opposed to its usual
   practice of making mass arrests and breaking up sporadic demonstrations.
   The rewriting of Egypta**s constitution a** a process that the military
   intends to fully control a** is likely to be one of several major
   disappointments that the opposition is likely to contend with in the
   months ahead, adding more friction to the already delicate arrangements
   the military has been seeking out with key opposition factions in trying
   to remove this fight from the streets.

   The more attention the Egyptian military must devote to internal matters,
   the more its problems will grow in the immediate neighborhood. A
   US-Arab-Turkish consensus on the need to contain Iran has Syria to the
   north in the regional spotlight, where a domestic political crisis is fast
   evolving into a regional proxy battle. Meanwhile, Islamist Palestinian
   movement Hamas is preparing itself for change to come out of Damascus
   (where its politbureau is currently headquartered,) while trying to
   leverage the political evolution that is already well under way in Egypt.
   The political legitimacy being granted to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt
   via this political transition has provided Hamas, an outgrowth of the MB,
   with an opportunity to rebrand itself as a mainstream political operator,
   one that is just as capable as the Egyptian MB to break out of political
   isolation in Gaza. 

   But Hamas will have to do more than a public relations campaign to break
   out of isolation.  The Egyptian military, which shares Israela**s interest
   in keeping Hamas contained and the Sinai buffer clear of foreign threats,
   remains the biggest obstacle to Hamasa** strategic objective of dominating
   the Palestinian political scene without Egyptian and Israeli shackles.
   Hamas would like to see a political evolution in Egypt that results in an
   Egyptian Islamist government friendly to Hamas and hostile to Israeli
   interests. This is an ambitious agenda, but is one likely worth working
   toward from the point of view of the Hamas leadership. The best chance
   that Hamas has in accelerating this evolution is by creating a crisis of
   legitimacy for the Egyptian military by drawing the military into a
   conflict with Israel. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways, and
   there is no shortage of militant proxies that have benefited from the
   Egyptian militarya**s political distractions to expand their area of
   operations in the Sinai. Israel is already frustrated by the Egyptian
   militarya**s slackened control over the Sinai and tends to revert to a
   more preemptive regional posture when neighborhood threats cross a certain
   line. Add to this the potential for Iran and Syria to exercise their
   militant proxy options to take the attention off regime change campaigns
   in Damascus, and Egypt could find itself in the midst of a Sinai crisis
   with Israel that both sides have spent the past 33 years desperately
   trying to avoid.

   This is not an evolution that will take place overnight. After all, Israel
   and Egypt went to war in 1973 to create the very peace that they are
   trying to preserve. This peace treaty is the foundation of external
   security for both sides of the Sinai peninsula and it will take a lot of
   organization and effort to break it apart, but the coming years will also
   put place the Arab-Israeli balance of power, as defined by peace between
   Egypt and Israel, under an unprecedented level of strain.

   --
   Maverick Fisher
   Director, Writers and Graphics
   STRATFOR
   221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
   Austin, TX 78701
   T: +1 512 744 4322 | F: +1 512 744 4334
   www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-12-13 17:02:27",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/309308_re-for-comment-conclusion-to-egypt-monograph-contemporary.html","fisher@stratfor.com","","McCullar@stratfor.com,reva.bhalla@stratfor.com",""
321063,"Re: Ranch
","   Very funny. Hawley must have told you I got it stuck last weekend.

   Steve McCoy wrote:

 Looks like it is getting another good rain now.

 Be careful if you go to the Mexican Flat - you might get your suburban stuck.....

  

   --
   Michael McCullar
   Senior Editor, Special Projects
   STRATFOR
   E-mail: mccullar@stratfor.com
   Tel: 512.744.4307
   Cell: 512.970.5425
   Fax: 512.744.4334
","2010-03-16 11:13:21",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/321063_re-ranch-.html","mccullar@stratfor.com","","bill.daves@e2mpartners.com,Steve.McCoy@transwestern.net,Alan.Harrington@transwestern.net,bhawley@lockelord.com,jimtarpley@att.net",""
339396,"RE: Insight - The Dems & Dirty Tricks ** Internal Use Only - Pls Do Not Forward ** 
","   Well, look at it this way. The Dems quit pretending and admitted to
   themselves that to win it you have to get off your high horse and play
   dirty when you have to. And they won.
    
    

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 7:41 AM
   To: secure@stratfor.com
   Subject: Insight - The Dems & Dirty Tricks ** Internal Use Only - Pls Do
   Not Forward **
   ** Internal Use Only - Pls Do Not Forward **
    
   1) The black Dems were caught stuffing the ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio
   as reported the night of the election and Sen. McCain chose not to
   fight.   The matter is not dead inside the party.  It now becomes a matter
   of sequence now as to how and when to \"out\".  
    
   2) It appears the Dems \"made a donation\" to Rev. Jesse (no, they would
   never do that!) to keep his yap shut after his diatribe about the Jews and
   Israel.  A little bird told me it was a \"nice six-figure donation\".  This
   also becomes a matter of how and when to out.  
    
   3) The hunt is on for the sleezy Russian money into O-mans coffers.  A
   smoking gun has already been found.  Will get more on this when the time
   is right.  My source was too giddy to continue.  Can you say Clinton and
   ChiCom funny money?   This also becomes a matter of how and when to out.  
","2008-11-07 14:45:50",1,"2012-02-27 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/339396_re-insight-the-dems-and-dirty-tricks-internal-use-only-pls.html","howerton@stratfor.com","","burton@stratfor.com,secure@stratfor.com",""
347043,"Insight - McCain #5 ** internal use only - Pls do not forward ** 
","   Further --
    
   After discussions with his inner circle, which explains the delay in his
   speech, McCain decided not to pursue the voter fraud in PA and Ohio,
   despite his staff's desire to make it an issue.  He said no.  Staff felt
   they could get a federal injunction to stop the process.  McCain felt the
   crowds assembled in support of Obama and such would be detrimental to our
   country and it would do our nation no good for this to drag out like last
   go around, coupled with the possibility of domestic violence. 
    
   My guy said many were shocked, but after reflecting upon his decision,
   thought he put the country first.  
    
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
   Curiously, there are whispers of McCain being set up by the Cheney/Bush
   crowd, because McCain was never liked by either.   Some are shocked he did
   so well.  Coupled with serious errors in tactics.  Some made no sense. 
   For example, the Hispanics in Florida loved Palin but his camp would never
   send her there when easy money was to be had.  My guy said Rove and
   company want to bring in someone they can control next go around.  McCain
   was not controllable.  Jeb Bush's name is being discussed.   Source
   advised Rick Davis was an arsehole and McCain's econ team had no clue,
   trusting in academics vice business-people.  The Jewish crowd was split
   and money never flowed.  For example, McCain staff only gave $3000.00 for
   nationwide ads, when Obama put in $500,000 targeting the Jewish community
   in Florida alone. 
    
   I'll see what more I can collect on this. 
","2008-11-05 14:40:28",1,"2012-02-27 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/347043_insight-mccain-5-internal-use-only-pls-do-not-forward-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","secure@stratfor.com",""
363668,"Re: FOR EDIT - GUATEMALA MASSACRE TACTICAL ANALYSIS - 110519
","   blue

   On 5/19/11 9:11 AM, Reginald Thompson wrote:

     -----------------
     Reginald Thompson

     Cell: (011) 504 8990-7741

     OSINT
     Stratfor

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Colby Martin\" <colby.martin@stratfor.com>
     To: analysts@stratfor.com
     Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 9:59:41 AM
     Subject: Re: FOR EDIT - GUATEMALA MASSACRE TACTICAL ANALYSIS - 110519

     By saying the elites represent the state we mean so in terms of
     practicality.  If you look back over the history of Guatemala, the
     landed elites ARE the government/economy.  During the conflict it was
     these elites and the CIA who overthrew the Guzman government after they
     became fearful the United Fruit Company wasn't the last landowners who
     were going to lose their unused land.   Sandra (and any other candidate)
     will always have problems with the elites when they seek the indigenous
     vote because the elites believe (and correctly) that they are the
     country, and without them you may when a popular vote, but you won't
     have any actual power to speak of.  For all intent, they believe
     themselves to be Guatemala, and in their minds without them the country
     is nothing more than a collection of tribes (and they mean that as
     racist as it sounds).

     This attack is significant and \"different\" for a few reasons.  It is the
     worst massacre in Guatemala since 96.  Guatemalans themselves (who live
     with constant violence) are particularly spooked by this event, the
     savagery of it, and the fact that civilians were killed for no other
     reason than they were there.  It is obvious they did not have the
     intelligence the Zetas were after, and more than likely the Zetas
     already knew where Salguero was and what he was doing.  So the question
     is, why kill a bunch of poor farmers who don't know something you
     already do know? 
     It is seen as an attack on both aspects of society, the indigenous
     trabajadores and the landed elite, with the message  being \"we are here
     and if you get in the way you are dead.\"   The use of Mexican Zetas
     instead of Guatemalans (according to a survivor) is also significant
     because of the politics in the region.  When I was there in 2006-2007
     the Colombians were pushing into Guatemala to take over the drug
     corridors. Sure it wasn't just the Colombian links to the Zetas, BLO,
     Chapo, etc? These guys tend to come up from the south to hand over
     drugs, conduct business with Mexicans and Central Americans, etc but
     they don't \"control\" the routes  The story on the Columbians was
     anecdotal.  Have a good friend who is ex D2/G2 who told me that one of
     our buddies had just been killed by Colombians outside of Moralas (where
     some of these workers killed in the massacre were from) and that the
     Colombians were pushing into Guatemala to take over the trade.  He said
     that he thought it was \"funny\" the Colombians thought they could just
     \"take over\" as this was Guatemala and it would always be controled by
     Guatemalans.  His point was that they wouldn't scare easily, and if that
     is what the Colombians thought, they were in for a suprise.  The
     Guatemalans fought back with particular ferocity, because Guatemala was
     going to be run by Guatemalans, and no one else.  The Mexican cartels
     seem to understand this, and although there are Mexican DTOs in the
     country, it is so because they work WITH the Guatemalans who control the
     routes .    Even if this was a one off attack on Otto Salguero and his
     family, the use of Mexicans would still be significant.  In a country
     where having someone killed cost about 7 USD, it was unnecessary unless
     their was a larger point being made. 

     I think the cartels are gearing up for something we long knew was
     coming.  They are possibly no longer willing to share the spoils with
     the Guatemalans, and so they are now willing to push the war into
     Guatemala on a larger scale in order to take the routes Sure that's not
     reading too much into this though? It could just be a case of \"remember
     who we are, don't fuck with us\", not so much a message of rejection to
     the Guatemalans.  It absolutly could be reading too much into it, and
     that is why we should hedge that is a possibility, not a certainty.  But
     considering the issues we speak of in the piece, I do not believe this
     was just a heads up.  This of course will bring in the military but not
     to stop the violence, but to secure the routes for Sandra and her ilk I
     think we may be getting a little ahead of ourselves in saying this. I
     mean yes, in practical terms, when you consider the amount of former and
     current military men involved in drug trafficking (plus the rumors of
     Torres's involvement in this), the military does have the effect of
     securing the routes for these people. However, I don't think this is the
     primary reason, nor should we even consider it that. Remember that, when
     the Zetas kill 27 people in Peten, the Guatemalan gov't faces some real
     pressures from abroad (read: the US) and domestically (from the general
     public and businesses that are freaked out over these killings). In
     practice, yes, the army acts as the biggest cartel, just as in Mexico.
     But they're also a tool to be used by the gov't in an actual CT role
     (albeit somewhat ineffectively). It's more multi-faceted than just
     saying that they'll roll in simply seize the routes. .Yes, I wrote this
     in context to my theories above.  I defintely believe the military will
     have a CT role to play, but the biggest fear is the military becoming
     involved, because no matter their intentions, they would not be able to
     resist the DTO's and the money.  Just as Stick has argued that the
     longer the Mexican Army is involved in the fight against DTO's, the more
     chance their is of their corruption.  The expansion of the military's
     role in Guatemala is something the people are stuggling with.  Yes they
     need protection, but do they trust the military to provide it?    What I
     am hearing from sources is that by drawing the military into any
     conflict is a worst case scenario, and one the Guatemalans themselves
     are terrified of.  It is also precisely what just happened.

     On 5/19/11 7:59 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

       also 'grisly', 'horrific', etc.

       the elite landowners don't 'represent' the state.... in fact, Sandra
       has a real problem on her hands with the landed elite the more she
       tries to go down the populist/indigenous vote grabbing route.  The
       landed elite are a powerful part of the state, but represent is not
       the right word

       i also don't see the basis for this claim \"We expect this to be the
       beginning of a trend which will have dramatic effect upon the
       geopolitics of the country and the greater Central American region. \"

       what is this supposed dramatic effect on the geopolitics of Guatemala
       and CA?  The Zetas have been there for a long time, likely with the
       cooperation of Sandra Torres and her allies. The Zetas also use
       messages like this to intimidate all the time. This analysis treats
       the event as if something radically new is happening.  The mass
       killing is notable for sure, but I really do not see this at all
       having a fundamental impact on Central American geopolitics

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
       To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
       Cc: \"Writers@Stratfor. Com\" <writers@stratfor.com>, \"scott stewart\"
       <scott.stewart@stratfor.com>
       Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 7:55:48 AM
       Subject: Re: FOR EDIT - GUATEMALA MASSACRE TACTICAL ANALYSIS - 110519

       Please take these loaded words out of the analysis as I suggested
       yesterday:
       massacre (it's a mass murder)
       sadistic (this is now a 'personality disorder' and we are not
       shrinks.  Please describe in dry, tactical terms)
       slaughter (we simply don't use words like this)
       On 5/18/11 6:42 PM, Victoria Allen wrote:

         On the night of 14/15 May, 27-29 Guatemalan laborers were
         slaughtered on the farm of a regional landowner near the village of
         San Benito, Peten Department, Guatemala's northernmost province. The
         mass killing appears to be the work of Mexico's Los Zetas cartel,
         due to the combination of the cartel's known presence in the region,
         its control of Chiapas and Campeche states [LINK:
         http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101218-mexican-drug-wars-bloodiest-year-date]
         bordering Peten on the north and west, and the grisly display of
         beheaded and dismembered victims. Somewhat out of character, though,
         was that they wrote the narco-message on a wall of a building with
         blood - using a victim's leg as the writing implement - which is not
         common for Los Zetas. However it has become clear over the last two
         years that Los Zetas tend to kill victims in particularly sadistic
         ways when time allows and a message needs to be sent - the result
         being a fearsome reputation. That this event occurred and involved
         Los Zetas, is not what makes the massacre significant. When taken
         together, several unusual aspects of this event present the
         probability that a significant shift is in progress in the dynamics
         of Zeta activities in northern Guatemala.

          

         Peten Department is remote, underdeveloped, and the people are
         strongly independent and distrustful of the Guatemalan government
         (this will be rewritten/reworked by Colby to convey more accurately
         in a single sentence the significance of the culture of the region
         vis-`a-vis outsiders, govt, kaibiles, etc...). It is known that Los
         Zetas over the years have recruited many Guatemalan kaibiles [LINK:
         http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110209-mexican-cartels-and-guatemalan-politics],
         current or former Guatemalan special forces soldiers, to the point
         that there is a high likelihood that Zetas operating in Guatemala,
         the Yucatan, and southern Mexico are from Guatemala. Based upon
         reported testimony of two of the survivors of the massacre the
         attackers wore military-style fatigues (not uncommon), and that they
         had Mexican accents. The presence of a large group of Mexican Zeta
         enforcers leads to the possibility that this group was sent into
         Peten Department for a specific purpose. In the context of a long
         presence of Guatemalan Zetas in the region, we ask why this change
         in operations came about.

          

         Further, the surviving witnesses indicated that the gunmen were
         demanding to know the whereabouts of the landowner, Otto Salguero,
         and as the peasants had just arrived to work for Salguero the
         previous week they would not have possessed any useful knowledge to
         extract - as opposed to that which long-time employees likely would
         possess. While interrogating the peasants regarding the whereabouts
         of Salguero - who was not on the property at the time - the peasants
         were killed, then methodically decapitated. But there are large
         anomalies evident in the event.

          

         According to reports from Latin American media, the Zeta force was
         camped in a what was described as a redoubt nearby for several days
         - most likely in surveillance of Salguero's residence and
         activities, judging by the proximity of their camp to the target's
         house - and as such probably knew that their apparent target was not
         on the property when they attacked. Additionally it was reported
         that, at the time the attack began, Salguero was attending the
         funeral of his niece and her father-in-law - who had been killed the
         previous day by Zetas when the pair were delivering ransom money for
         another family member. The Zetas killed and beheaded the people they
         were interrogating, presumably because the peasants could offer no
         information, but the Zetas likely knew where their target was - and
         why. The conflicting information then points to the potential that
         Los Zetas slaughtered the peasants knowing they were not relevant to
         whatever activities Salguero was engaged in that made him a Zeta
         target in the first place. There are indications in the media that
         Salguero's activities have been counter to Zeta interests for
         several years, however as there is little clarity yet in this aspect
         of the chain of events, STRATFOR is in the process of corroborating
         rumored connections before giving them credence in analysis on this
         situation.

          

         Regarding the contradiction of reported information and historical
         evidence, another element in play is the leaving of witnesses: Los
         Zetas typically does not do so unless the group wishes to deliver a
         pointed message, though there have been occasions when a victim has
         \"played dead\" until the Zetas depart, as occurred at the massacre of
         the Central American migrants in San Fernando last year [LINK:
         http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20100826_revelations_72_migrants_deaths].
         As reported in Guatemalan news on the event, while one survivor did
         so by \"playing dead\" after he was wounded, a woman was specifically
         and pointedly spared. She apparently was told by the Zeta leader
         that she would be spared because of her daughters, who were with her
         and reportedly whom she had attempted to protect by covering them
         with her body. As it happens the woman is pregnant as well, but that
         may not have played into the decision to allow her to live. What is
         not known at this point about the Zetas sparing her and her
         children, is what message she may have been specifically instructed
         to convey after the event came to light.

          

         There remains a great deal of uncertain or uncorroborated
         information surrounding the massacre in Peten. STRATFOR is
         monitoring the developments closely, for there are many questions to
         be answered. It is clear though, from the known facts and the
         identified anomalies, that a profound message was being sent. Based
         upon the available information STRATFOR's initial take is that the
         message was the violence, that because Mexicans were used rather
         than Guatemalans, Los Zetas are there, no one is safe - from the
         average peasant to the elite landowners (who represent the state).
         The more gruesome the scene created by Los Zetas, the more it will
         remind the Guatemalan people of the horrific acts of the death
         squads during that country's 36 year civil war - and the death
         squads were kaibiles, who now are aligned with Los Zetas. The
         connection will have been made. The primal fear this event instilled
         in Guatemalans has been evidenced by STRATFOR's sources in that
         country flatly refusing to discuss or even acknowledge it as having
         happened. We expect this to be the beginning of a trend which will
         have dramatic effect upon the geopolitics of the country and the
         greater Central American region. The second part of this discussion,
         next week, will examine those wider implications which we perceive
         to have been triggered by the massacre at San Benito.

          

          

          

          

         Victoria Allen
         Tactical Analyst (Mexico)
         Strategic Forecasting
         512-279-9475
         victoria.allen@stratfor.com
         \"There is nothing more necessary than good intelligence to frustrate
         a designing enemy, & nothing requires greater pains to
         obtain.\" -- George Washington

       --

       Sean Noonan

       Tactical Analyst

       Office: +1 512-279-9479

       Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

       Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

       www.stratfor.com
","2011-05-19 16:40:03",1,"2012-03-01 10:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/363668_re-for-edit-guatemala-massacre-tactical-analysis-110519-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
363803,"Security Weekly : The Bin Laden Operation: Tapping Human Intelligence
","    Stratfor logo                                                             
   The Bin Laden Operation: Tapping Human Intelligence                        
                                                                              
    May 26, 2011                                                              
                                                                              
    Readers Comment on STRATFOR Reports                                       
                                                                              
    By Fred Burton                                                            
                                                                              
    Since May 2, when U.S. special operations forces crossed the              
    Afghan-Pakistani border and killed Osama bin Laden, international media   
    have covered the raid from virtually every angle. The United States and   
    Pakistan have also squared off over the U.S. violation of Pakistan's      
    sovereign territory and [IMG] Pakistan's possible complicity in hiding    
    the al Qaeda leader. All this surface-level discussion, however, largely  
    ignores almost 10 years of intelligence development in the hunt for bin   
    Laden.                                                                    
                                                                              
    While the cross-border nighttime raid deep into Pakistan was a daring     
    and daunting operation, the work to find the target - one person out of   
    180 million in a country full of insurgent groups and a population        
    hostile to American activities on its soil - was a far greater            
    challenge. For the other side, the challenge of hiding the world's most   
    wanted man from the world's most funded intelligence apparatus created a  
    clandestine shell game that probably involved current or former           
    Pakistani intelligence officers as well as competing intelligence         
    services. The details of this struggle will likely remain classified for  
    decades.                                                                  
                                                                              
    Examining the hunt for bin Laden is also difficult, mainly because of     
    the sensitivity of the mission and the possibility that some of the       
    public information now available could be disinformation intended to      
    disguise intelligence sources and methods. Successful operations can      
    often compromise human sources and new intelligence technologies that     
    have taken years to develop. Because of this, it is not uncommon for      
    intelligence services to try to create a wilderness of mirrors to         
    protect sources and methods. But using open-source reporting and human    
    intelligence from STRATFOR's own sources, we can assemble enough          
    information to draw some conclusions about this complex intelligence      
    effort and raise some key questions.                                      
                                                                              
     The Challenge                                                            
                                                                              
    Following the 9/11 attacks, finding and killing bin Laden became the      
    primary mission of the U.S. intelligence community, particularly the      
    CIA. This mission was clearly laid out in a presidential \"finding,\" or    
    directive, signed on Sept. 17, 2001, by then-U.S. President George W.     
    Bush. By 2005 it became clear to STRATFOR that bin Laden was deep inside  
    Pakistan. Although the Pakistani government was ostensibly a U.S. ally,   
    it was known that there were elements within it sympathetic to al Qaeda   
    and bin Laden. In order to find bin Laden, U.S. intelligence would have   
    to work with - and against - Pakistani intelligence services.             
                                                                              
    Finding bin Laden in a hostile intelligence environment while friends     
    and sympathizers were protecting him represented a monumental             
    intelligence challenge for the United States. With bin Laden and his      
    confederates extremely conscious of U.S technical intelligence            
    abilities, the search quickly became a human-intelligence challenge.      
    While STRATFOR believes bin Laden had become tactically irrelevant since  
    9/11, he remained symbolically important and a focal point for the U.S.   
    intelligence effort. And while it appears that the United States has      
    improved its intelligence capabilities and passed an important test,      
    much remains undone. Today, the public information surrounding the case   
    illuminates the capabilities that will be used to find other high-value   
    targets as the U.S. effort continues.                                     
                                                                              
    The official story on the intelligence that led to bin Laden's            
    Abbottabad compound has been widely reported, leaked from current and     
    former U.S. officials. It focuses on a man with the cover name Abu Ahmed  
    al-Kuwaiti, a Pakistani Pashtun born in Kuwait who became bin Laden's     
    most trusted courier. With fluency in Pashto and Arabic, according to     
    media reports, al-Kuwaiti would be invaluable to al Qaeda, and in order   
    to purchase bin Laden's property and run errands he would also need to    
    be fluent in Urdu. His position as bin Laden's most trusted courier made  
    him a key link in disrupting the organization. While this man supposedly  
    led the United States to bin Laden, it took a decade of revamping U.S.    
    intelligence capabilities and a great deal of hard work (and maybe even   
    a lucky break) to actually find him.                                      
                                                                              
    The first step for U.S. intelligence services after Bush's directive was  
    focusing their efforts on bin Laden and the al Qaeda leadership.          
    Intelligence collection against al Qaeda was under way before 9/11, but   
    after the attacks it became the No. 1 priority. Due to a lack of human    
    intelligence in the region and allies for an invasion of Afghanistan,     
    the CIA revived connections with anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan and   
    with Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate in order    
    to oust the Taliban government and accrue intelligence for use in         
    disrupting al Qaeda. The connections were built in the 1980s as the CIA   
    famously operated through the ISI to fund militant groups in Afghanistan  
    fighting the Soviet military. Most of these links were lost when the      
    Soviets withdrew from the Southwest Asian state and the CIA nominally     
    declared victory. Pakistan, left with Afghanistan and these militant      
    groups, developed a working relationship with the Taliban and others for  
    its own interests. A coterie of ISI officers was embedded with different  
    militant groups, and some of them became jihadist sympathizers.           
                                                                              
    U.S. intelligence budgets were severely cut in the 1990s in light of the  
    \"peace dividend\" following the fall of the Soviet Union, as some U.S.     
    leaders argued there was no one left to fight. Intelligence collection    
    was a dirty, ambiguous and dangerous game that U.S. politicians were not  
    prepared to stomach. John Deutch, the director of the CIA from 1995 to    
    1996, gutted the CIA's sources on what was known as the \"Torricelli       
    Principle\" (named after then-Rep. Robert Torricelli), which called for    
    the removal of any unsavory characters from the payroll. This meant       
    losing sources in the exact kind of organizations U.S. intelligence       
    would want to infiltrate, including militants in Southwest Asia.          
                                                                              
    The CIA began to revive its contacts in the region after the 1998 U.S.    
    Embassy bombings in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. While    
    the U.S. intelligence community was looking for bin Laden at this time,   
    he was not a high priority, and U.S. human-intelligence capabilities in   
    the region were limited. The United States has always had trouble with    
    human intelligence - having people sitting at computers is less of a      
    security risk than having daring undercover operatives running around in  
    the field - and by the end of the 1990s it was relying on technological   
    platforms for intelligence more than ever.                                
                                                                              
    The United States was in this state on Sept. 12, 2001, when it began to   
    ramp up its intelligence operations, and al Qaeda was aware of this. Bin  
    Laden knew that if he could stay away from electronic communications,     
    and generally out of sight, he would be much harder to track. After       
    invading Afghanistan and working with the ISI in Pakistan, the United     
    States had a large number of detainees who it hoped would have            
    information to breach bin Laden's operational security. From some mix of  
    detainees caught in operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan (particularly  
    with the help of the ISI), including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Farj  
    al-Libi, came information leading to an important bin Laden courier       
    known by various names, including Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. (His actual       
    identity is still unconfirmed, though his real name may be Sheikh Abu     
    Ahmed.)                                                                   
                                                                              
    The efficacy of enhanced interrogation and torture techniques is          
    constantly debated - they may have helped clarify or obfuscate the        
    courier's identity (some reports say Mohammed tried to lead               
    investigators away from him). What is clear is that U.S. intelligence     
    lacked both a sophisticated and nuanced understanding of al Qaeda and,    
    most important, human sources with access to that information. With the   
    United States not knowing what al Qaeda was capable of, the fear of a     
    follow-on attack to 9/11 loomed large.                                    
                                                                              
    Anonymous U.S. intelligence officials told Reuters the breakthrough came  
    when a man named Hassan Ghul was captured in Iraq in 2004 by Kurdish      
    forces and turned over to the United States. Little is known about        
    Ghul's identity except that he is believed to have worked with Abu Musab  
    al-Zarqawi and to have given interrogators information about a man named  
    \"al-Kuwaiti\" who was a courier between al-Zarqawi and al Qaeda            
    operational commanders in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Ghul was then given   
    over to the Pakistani security services; he is believed to have been      
    released in 2007 and to now be fighting somewhere in the region.          
                                                                              
    While U.S. intelligence services got confirmation of al-Kuwaiti's role    
    from al-Libi, they could not find the courier. It is unknown if they      
    gave any of this information to the Pakistanis or asked for their help.   
    According to leaks from U.S. officials to AP, the Pakistanis provided     
    the National Security Agency (NSA), the main U.S. communications          
    interception agency, with information that allowed it to monitor a SIM    
    card from a cellphone that had frequently called Saudi Arabia. In 2010,   
    the NSA intercepted a call made by al-Kuwaiti and began tracking him in   
    Pakistan. Another U.S. official told CNN that the operational security    
    exercised by al-Kuwaiti and his brother made them difficult to trail,     
    but \"an elaborate surveillance effort\" was organized to track them to     
    the Abbottabad compound.                                                  
                                                                              
    From then on, the NSA monitored all of the cellphones used by the         
    couriers and their family members, though they were often turned off and  
    had batteries removed when the phones' users went to the Abbottabad       
    compound or to other important meetings. The compound was monitored by    
    satellites and RQ-170 Sentinels, stealth versions of unmanned aerial      
    vehicles (UAVs), which were reportedly flown over the compound.           
    According to The Wall Street Journal, the National                        
    Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) even built a replica of the          
    compound for CIA Director Leon Panetta and other officials. The NGA is    
    the premier U.S. satellite observation agency, which could have watched   
    the goings-on at the compound and even spotted bin Laden, though it       
    would have been difficult to confirm his identity.                        
                                                                              
    Some of these leaks could be disingenuous in order to lead the public     
    and adversary intelligence agencies away from highly classified sources   
    and methods. But they do reflect long-believed assessments of the U.S.    
    intelligence community regarding its advanced capability in               
    technology-based intelligence gathering as well as the challenges it      
    faces in human-intelligence collection.                                   
                                                                              
     The Utility of Liaison Relationships                                     
                                                                              
    Historically, U.S. intelligence officers have been white males, though    
    the CIA has more recently begun hiring more minorities, including those   
    from various ethnic and linguistic groups important to its mission (or    
    at least those who can pass the polygraph and full-field background       
    investigation, a substantial barrier). Even when intelligence officers    
    look the part in the countries in which they operate and have a native    
    understanding of the cultures and languages, they need sources within     
    the organizations they are trying to penetrate. It is these sources,      
    recruited by intelligence officers and without official or secret         
    status, who are the \"agents\" providing the information needed back at     
    headquarters. The less an intelligence officer appears like a local the   
    more difficult it is to meet with and develop these agents, which has     
    led the United States to frequently depend on liaison services - local    
    intelligence entities - to collect information.                           
                                                                              
    Many intelligence services around the world were established with         
    American support or funding for just this purpose. The most dependent     
    liaison services essentially function as sources, acquiring information   
    at the local CIA station's request. They are often made up of             
    long-serving officers in the local country's military, police or          
    intelligence services, with a nuanced understanding of local issues and   
    the ability to maintain a network of sources. With independent            
    intelligence services, such as Israel's Mossad, there has been roughly    
    an equal exchange of intelligence, where Israeli sources may recruit a    
    human source valuable to the United States and the CIA may have           
    satellite imagery or communications intercepts valuable to the Israelis.  
                                                                              
    Of course, this is not a simple game. It involves sophisticated players   
    trying to collect intelligence while deceiving one another about their    
    intentions and plans - and many times trying to muddy the water a little  
    to hide the identity of their sources from the liaison service. Even the  
    closest intelligence relationships, such as that between the CIA and the  
    British Secret Intelligence Service, have been disrupted by moles like    
    Kim Philby, a longtime Soviet plant who handled the liaison work between  
    the two agencies.                                                         
                                                                              
    Since most U.S. intelligence officers serve on rotations of only one to   
    three years - out of concern they will \"go native\" or to allow them to    
    return to the comfort of home - it becomes even more challenging to       
    develop long-term human-intelligence sources. While intelligence          
    officers will pass their sources off to their replacements, the liaison   
    service becomes even more valuable in being able to sustain source        
    relationships, which can take years to build. Liaison relationships,      
    then, become a way to efficiently use and extend U.S. intelligence        
    resources, which, unlike such services in most countries, have global     
    requirements. The United States may be the world's superpower, but it is  
    impossible for it to maintain sources everywhere.                         
                                                                              
     Liaison and Unilateral Operations in the Hunt for Bin Laden              
                                                                              
    In recent years, U.S. intelligence has worked with Pakistan's ISI most    
    notably in raids throughout Pakistan against senior al Qaeda operatives   
    like Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu     
    Farj al-Libi. We can also presume that much of the information used by    
    the United States for UAV strikes comes through sources in Pakistani      
    intelligence as well as those on the Afghan side of the border. Another   
    example of such cooperation, also to find bin Laden, is the CIA's work    
    with the Jordanian General Intelligence Department, an effort that went   
    awry in the Khost suicide attack. Such is the risk with liaison           
    relationships - to what extent can one intelligence officer trust         
    another's sources and motives? Nevertheless, these liaison networks were  
    the best the United States had available, and huge amounts of resources   
    were put into developing intelligence through them in looking for major   
    jihadists, including bin Laden.                                           
                                                                              
    The United States is particularly concerned about Pakistan's              
    intelligence services and the possibility that some of their officers     
    could be compromised by, or at least sympathetic to, jihadists. Given     
    the relationships with jihadists maintained by former ISI officers such   
    as Khalid Khawaja and Sultan Amir Tarar (known as Colonel Imam), who      
    were both held hostage and killed by Pakistani militants, and most        
    famously former ISI Director Hamid Gul, there is cause for concern.       
    These three are the most famous former ISI officers with links to         
    jihadists, but because they were (or are) long retired from the ISI and   
    their notoriety makes them easy to track to jihadists, they have little   
    influence on either group. But the reality is that there are current ISI  
    and military officers sympathizing or working with important jihadist     
    groups. Indeed, it was liaison work by the CIA and Saudi Arabia that      
    helped develop strong connections with Arab and Afghan militants, some    
    of whom would go on to become members of al Qaeda and the Taliban. The    
    ISI was responsible for distributing U.S.- and Saudi-supplied weapons to  
    various Afghan militant groups to fight the Russians in the 1980s, and    
    it controlled contact with these groups. If some of those contacts        
    remain, jihadists could be using members of the ISI rather than the       
    other way around.                                                         
                                                                              
    Due to concerns like these, according to official statements and leaked   
    information, U.S. intelligence officers never told their Pakistani        
    liaison counterparts about the forthcoming bin Laden raid. It appears     
    the CIA developed a unilateral capability to operate within Pakistan,     
    demonstrated by the Raymond Davis shooting in January as well as the bin  
    Laden raid. Davis was a contractor providing security for U.S.            
    intelligence officers in Pakistan when he killed two reportedly armed     
    men in Lahore, and his case brought the CIA-ISI conflict out in the       
    open. Requests by Pakistani officials to remove more than 300 similar     
    individuals from the country show that there are a large number of U.S.   
    intelligence operatives in Pakistan. Other aspects of this unilateral     
    U.S. effort were the tracking of bin Laden, further confirmation of his   
    identity and the safe house the CIA maintained in Abbottabad for months   
    to monitor the compound.                                                  
                                                                              
     The CIA and the ISI                                                      
                                                                              
    Even with the liaison relationships in Pakistan, which involved meetings  
    between the CIA station chief in Islamabad and senior members of the      
    ISI, the CIA ran unilateral operations on the ground. Liaison services    
    cannot be used to recruit sources within the host government; this must   
    be done unilaterally. This is where direct competition between            
    intelligence services comes into play. In Pakistan, this competition may  
    involve different organizations such as Pakistan's Intelligence Bureau    
    or Federal Investigation Agency, both of which have counterintelligence   
    functions, or separate departments within the ISI, where one department   
    is assigned to liaison while others handle counterintelligence or work    
    with militant groups. Counterintelligence officers may want to disrupt    
    intelligence operations that involve collecting information on the        
    host-country military, or they may simply want to monitor the foreign     
    intelligence service's efforts to recruit jihadists. They can also feed   
    disinformation to the operatives. This competition is known to all        
    players and is not out of the ordinary.                                   
                                                                              
    But the U.S. intelligence community is wondering if this ordinary         
    competition was taken to another level - if the ISI, or elements of it,   
    were actually protecting bin Laden. The people helping bin Laden and      
    other al Qaeda operatives and contacts in Abbottabad were the same        
    people the CIA was competing against. Were they simply jihadists or a     
    more resourceful and capable state intelligence agency? If the ISI as an  
    institution knew about bin Laden's location, it would mean it outwitted   
    the CIA for nearly a decade in hiding his whereabouts. It would also      
    mean that no ISI officers who knew his location were turned by U.S.       
    intelligence, that no communications were intercepted and that no leaks   
    reached the media.                                                        
                                                                              
    On the other hand, if someone within the ISI was protecting bin Laden     
    and keeping it from the rest of the organization, it would mean the ISI   
    was beaten internally and the CIA eventually caught up by developing its  
    own sources and was able to find bin Laden on its own. As we point out    
    above, the official story on the bin Laden intelligence effort may be     
    disinformation to protect sources and methods. Still, this seems to be a  
    more plausible scenario. American and Pakistani sources have told         
    STRATFOR that there are likely jihadist sympathizers within the ISI who   
    helped bin Laden or his supporters. Given that Pakistan is fighting its   
    own war with al Qaeda-allied groups like Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, the   
    country's leadership in Islamabad has no interest in protecting them.     
    Furthermore, finding an individual anywhere, especially in a foreign      
    country with multiple insurgencies under way, is an extremely difficult   
    intelligence challenge.                                                   
                                                                              
    Assuming the official story is mostly true, the bin Laden raid            
    demonstrates that U.S. intelligence has come full circle since the end    
    of the Cold War. It was able to successfully collect and analyze          
    intelligence of all types and develop and deploy on-the-ground            
    capabilities it had been lacking to find an individual who was hiding     
    and probably protected. It was able to quickly work with special          
    operations forces under CIA command to carry out an elaborate operation   
    to capture or kill him, a capability honed by the U.S. Joint Special      
    Operations Command (JSOC) in the development of its own capture-and-kill  
    capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. The CIA is responsible for          
    missions in Pakistan, where, like the JSOC, it has demonstrated an        
    efficient and devastating capability to task UAV strikes and conduct      
    cross-border raids. The bin Laden raid was the public proof of concept    
    that the United States could collect intelligence and reach far into      
    hostile territory to capture or kill its targets.                         
                                                                              
    It is unclear exactly how the U.S. intelligence community has been able   
    to develop these capabilities, beyond the huge post-9/11 influx of money  
    and personnel (simply throwing resources at a problem is never a          
    complete solution). The United States faced Sept. 11, 2001, without       
    strategic warning of the attacks inspired by bin Laden, and then it       
    faced a tactical threat it was unprepared to fight. Whatever the new and  
    improved human-intelligence capabilities may be, they are no doubt some   
    function of the experience gained by operatives in a concerted, global    
    campaign against jihadists. Human intelligence is probably still the      
    biggest U.S. weakness, but given the evidence of unilateral operations    
    in Pakistan, it is not the weakness it used to be.                        
                                                                              
     The Intelligence Battle Between the U.S. and Pakistan                    
                                                                              
    The [IMG] competition and cooperation among various intelligence          
    agencies did not end with the death of Osama bin Laden. Publicity         
    surrounding the operation has led to calls in Pakistan to eject any and   
    all American interests in the country. In the past few years, Pakistan    
    has made it difficult for many Americans to get visas, especially those   
    with official status that may be cover for intelligence operations.       
    Raymond Davis was one of these people. Involved in protecting             
    intelligence officers who were conducting human-intelligence missions,    
    he would have been tasked not only with protecting them from physical     
    threats from jihadists but also with helping ensure they were not under   
    the surveillance of a hostile intelligence agency.                        
                                                                              
    Pakistan has only ratcheted up these barriers since the bin Laden raid.   
    The Interior Ministry announced May 19 that it would ban travel by        
    foreign diplomats to cities other than those where they are stationed     
    without permission from Pakistani authorities. The News, a Pakistani      
    daily, reported May 20 that Interior Minister Rehman Malik chaired a      
    meeting with provincial authorities on regulating travel by foreigners,   
    approving their entry into the country and monitoring unregistered        
    mobile phones. While some of these efforts are intended to deal with      
    jihadists disguised within large groups of Afghan nationals, they also    
    place barriers on foreign intelligence officers in the country. While     
    non-official cover is becoming more common for CIA officers overseas,     
    many are still traveling on various diplomatic documents and thus would   
    require these approvals. The presence of intelligence officers on the     
    ground for the bin Laden raid shows there are workarounds for such        
    barriers that will be used when the mission is important enough. In       
    fact, according to STRATFOR sources, the CIA has for years been           
    operating in Pakistan under what are known as *Moscow rules* - the        
    strictest tradecraft for operating behind enemy lines - with clandestine  
    units developing human sources and searching for al Qaeda and other       
    militant leaders.                                                         
                                                                              
    And this dynamic will only continue. Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman   
    Bashir told The Wall Street Journal on May 6 that another operation like  
    the bin Laden raid would have \"terrible consequences,\" while U.S.         
    President Barack Obama told BBC on May 22 that he would authorize         
    similar strikes in the future if they were called for. Pakistan, as any   
    sovereign country would, is trying to protect its territory, while the    
    United States will continue to search for high-value targets who are      
    hiding there. The bin Laden operation only brought this clandestine       
    competition to the public eye.                                            
                                                                              
    Bin Laden is dead, but many other individuals on the U.S. high-value      
    target list remain at large. With the bold execution and ultimate         
    success of the Abbottabad raid now public, the overarching American       
    operational concept for hunting high-value targets has been demonstrated  
    and the immense resources that were focused on bin Laden are now freed    
    up. While the United States still faces intelligence challenges, those    
    most wanted by the Americans can no longer take comfort in the fact that  
    bin Laden is eluding his hunters or that the Americans are expending any  
    more of their effort looking for him.                                     
                                                                              
    Give us your thoughts                          Read comments on           
    on this report                                 other reports              
                                                                              
    For Publication                                Reader Comments            
                                                                              
    Not For Publication                                                       
                                                                              
    Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by   
    prominently displaying the following sentence at the beginning or end of  
    the report, including the hyperlink to STRATFOR:                          
                                                                              
    \"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR\"                  
    Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us                                
    (c) Copyright 2011 Stratfor. All rights reserved.                         
","2011-05-26 11:01:12",1,"2012-03-01 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/363803_security-weekly-the-bin-laden-operation-tapping-human.html","noreply@stratfor.com","mailto:stratforaustin@stratfor.com","allstratfor@stratfor.com",""
364732,"Re: Wikileaks
","Stand down, got the lads on culling the materials.

------Original Message------
From: Mike Parks
To: 'Fred Burton'
Subject: RE: Wikileaks
Sent: Jul 26, 2010 1:50 PM

Maybe - but it would take me a long time(I emphasize \"me\" - more technically
savvy people might do better. There are over 90K pieces in the cache.

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 11:24 AM
To: Mike Parks
Subject: Re: Wikileaks

can you cull 'em out?

Mike Parks wrote:
> Bunch of DSS surveillance reports (Ambo's detail) in the wikileaks cache.
","2010-07-26 20:52:39",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/364732_re-wikileaks-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","longbow99@earthlink.net",""
364817,"Fw: [CT] FW: Guidance on the leaks
","     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com>
   Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:52:03 +0000
   To: Colby Martin<colby.martin@stratfor.com>; CT AOR<ct@stratfor.com>;
   George Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: burton@stratfor.com
   Subject: Re: [CT] FW: Guidance on the leaks
   We probably asked the ASIS to monitor Wiki coms and email, after the
   soldier from Potomac was nabbed. So, its reasonable to assume we probably
   already know who has done it.

   The delay could be figuring out how to declassify and use the Aussie intel
   on Wiki.

   Wiki holding on to other docs is to protect their sources.

   The owner is a peacenik. He needs his head dunked in a full toilet bowl at
   Gitmo.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Colby Martin <colby.martin@stratfor.com>
   Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:47:38 -0500 (CDT)
   To: <burton@stratfor.com>; CT AOR<ct@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [CT] FW: Guidance on the leaks

 Sorry if this has been seen but it is a good article and goes with what we are
                                    saying.

                       WikiLeaks' Afghan Documents and Me

  http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/07/wikileaks-afghan-documents-and-me-source

   a** By Adam Weinstein

   | Sun Jul. 25, 2010 10:28 PM PDT

   a** Flickr/ Jabber1990 (Creative Commons)

   [For more on the WikiLeaks Afghan document dump, read posts by Kevin Drum
   here and senior editor Dave Gilson here.]

   Here's a cliche for you: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And
   here's a fact: A little knowledge is precisely what Julian Assange and his
   WikiLeaks cohorts have given us in the \"Afghan War Diary.\" The intimation
   by Assange (and the media outlets he cherry-picked to preview the data) is
   that these are the Pentagon Papers of the Afghan war. Certainly there are
   a few eyebrow-raising details in the bunch, as Mark Mazzetti, Chris
   Chivers & Co. at the New York Times point out. But in truth, there's not
   much there. I know, because I've seen many of these reports beforea**at
   least, thousands of similar ones from Iraq, when I was a contractor there
   last year.

   I haven't been through everything yet, but most of what you see on
   WikiLeaks are military SIGACTS (significant activity reports). These are
   theoretically accessible by anyone in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Tampa,
   Florida-based US Central Commanda**soldiers and contractorsa**who have
   access to the military's most basic intranet for sensitive data, the
   Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet). Literally thousands of
   people in hundreds of locations could read them, and any one of them could
   be the source for WikiLeaks' data. I regularly went through the daily
   SIGACT reports in Iraq, not because my job required it, but because my
   colleagues and I were curious. We heard mortars or car bombs explode in
   the distance at night, and we couldn't help but wonder: What the hell was
   that? Every time a US unit engaged the enemy, encountered munitions, saw
   or heard something go boom, caught a criminal, or located a weapons cache,
   a report was filed. So, each morning when I entered my office on Camp
   Victory, I fired up my SIPR terminal and checked the SIGACTS for
   interesting stuff. 

   The first time I did it, my pupils dilated. A vein in my throat warmed.
   The reporter in me did backflips. I was about to breathe pure oxygen.

   By day three or four, I was bored to tears. Here's what I learned:

   Some SIGACTS are more detailed than others; most are mundane. Only a few
   in WikiLeaks' bunch fall in the former category. For example, an October
   2009 missive provides harrowing details of a battle in which Combat
   Outpost Keating was overrun by Taliban fighters; Chivers at the NYT did an
   amazing job of reconstructing that terrible massacre, in which eight US
   soldiers died and 23 were wounded. But most SIGACTS are much more
   routine-sounding; for instance, the Battle of Wanat on July 13, 2008, was
   actually the deadliest battle of the war for US forces so far, and a
   source of major controversy. Yet its secret report sounds dull by
   comparison.

   Probably the most significant thing about the SIGACTS is that they're
   counted and graphed by the military as a metric of how we're doing, and
   the obvious thing about the Afghan War Diary is that there are tons more
   entries for recent months in 2008 and 2009 than there were in previous
   months through the war. That's also a function of numbers of US and
   coalition forces; just as crime goes up when you put more cops on the
   street, SIGACTS probably should go up when you put more boots on the
   ground. And bear in mind, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison; more
   SIGACTS may mean more good things, like arrests and caches found, rather
   than civilian and coalition casualties. Even so, the most recent numbers
   are pretty sobering.

   There are two categories of data in the WikiLeaks files that could be
   really interestinga**and could cause some serious repercussions. One is
   the military's FRAGOs, fragmentary orders. These are strategic directives
   from headquarter to junior military commands in the field, and they cover
   pretty much everythinga**from orders on how to deal with detainees to an
   on-base visit by the wrestling stars of WWE. WikiLeaks provides a log of
   these FRAGOs, but doesn't have the orders themselves. It's a great
   bibliographic resource for reporters with time on their hands to file a
   FOIA request for the actual orders. But in the meantime, it's not much by
   itself.

   The other interesting data are notes from what the military calls
   KLEsa**key leader engagements. Military officers, as well as officials
   from State, USAID, and other agencies regularly meet with important
   players in a war zone to get their take on the situation. Often they're
   dull and tell the interviewers little they didn't already know; sometimes,
   though, they give insight to \"atmospherics\"a**how Afghan locals feel about
   US forces or the Taliban. Many of these key leaders take their lives into
   their hands; from my experience in Iraq, I know that numerous Shiites,
   Sunnis and Kurds with high standing among their tribesa**and among our
   enemiesa**took time to brief US officials, often to dish dirt on crooked
   or violent elements in their vicinity. If they were ever outed as
   collaborators with American forces, they'd be as good as dead. And
   Wikileaks has 16 pages of secret military KLEs with individuals and groups
   in Afghanistan, spanning six years. No names are redacted. In this case,
   what retired general James Jones, the White House national security
   adviser, said yesterday is correct: WL is putting some lives at serious
   risk with that particular data dump.

   I'll keep running through to see if there's anything else of importance.
   But most of this information is tactical nuts and bolts, devoid of
   context, and largely useless for a war narrative; what would be far more
   valuable than this stuff is the strategic/political data: military info
   that's TOP SECRET or above, which I haven't seen yet; or stuff from the
   State Department or provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs). (One
   interesting item: A November 2006 report on the WL site suggests that at
   least one PRTa**a team of anthropologists, political and developmental
   specialists, and soldiers sent out to assist local Afghans in rebuilding
   their nationa**engaged in propaganda, feeding broadcast information to
   local radio stations. It's not exactly damning, but it doesn't quite jibe
   with the PRTs' benevolent mission statement, either.)

   By and large, like most of the stunts pulled by Assange, this one's long
   on heat and short on light, nothing you didn't already know if you were
   paying attention to our wars. (And to the extent that you weren't, well, I
   guess the leak is on the whole a good thing.) For the best color
   commentary on this document dump, check out the very succinct analysis of
   Abu Muqawama at the Center for a New American Security. He pretty much
   says it all.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com>
   To: \"CT AOR\" <ct@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 1:23:16 PM
   Subject: Re: [CT] FW: Guidance on the leaks

   Stick and I could find the suspect in 3 days.

   -----Original Message-----
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Sender: ct-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:47:07
   To: CT AOR<ct@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [CT] FW: Guidance on the leaks

   The first is an excerpt from an intelligence summary probably sent to
   thousands; the second appears to be a DIA report, but could also be a
   retransmitted CIA document possibly through DIA reports, based on the
   the way the names are bracketed w/the ((.  The brackets around the names
   goes back to the old days, when this denoted that the names should be
   cataloged on index cards by the ladies back home.

   Matthew Powers wrote
   > Attached are the only two reports that I have been able to find so far
   > that deal with Gul.  These are both classified secret.  I am still
   > trying to figure out who would have produced them, but wanted to post
   > them in case someone here would know.
   >
   > MAGNETIC IED THREAT IN KABUL
   > Organization(s) Involved: OPPOSING MILITANT FORCES
   > 31 DEC 2006, CJTF-76 INTSUM, NIS
   > 20061231-RC-C G2 -N/I S
   > IED THREAT WARN - RC-C, KABUL, SIED & RCIED (MAGNETIC MINES), 30 DEC - 1
   > JAN  07
   > Importance: High
   > Classification: NATO/ISAF SECRET
   > FYI.  Extract from:
   > CJTF-76 Air Component Coordination Element (ACCE)
   > CJTF-76 Air Support Operations Center (ASOC)
   > Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan
   > INTELLIGENCE SUMMARY
   > 30 Dec 06
   > (290300Z Dec 06 - 300259Z Dec 06)
   > Country-Wide Threats:
   > (N/I R) On approximately 17 December 2006, following a meeting between
   > senior members of the TALIBAN leadership in NOWSHAHRA, Pakistan
   > (GEOCOORD NOT AVAILABLE), which included General Hamid GUL, the former
   > Chief of Inter-Services Intelligence  (ISI) Directorate of Pakistan.
   > During this meeting GUL claimed he dispatched three unidentified
   > individuals to KABUL City (GEOCOORD: 42S WD 15172 19937) to carry out
   > IED attacks during the Eid celebration.  GUL instructed two of the
   > individuals to plant IEDs along the roads frequently utilized by
   > Government of Afghanistan (GOA) and ISAF vehicles.  The third individual
   > is to carry out a suicide attack utilizing a suicide vest against GOA or
   > ISAF entities.  Reportedly GULs final comment to the three
   > individuals was make the snow warm in KABUL, basically telling them to
   > set KABUL aflame.
   > (N/I R) The three individuals traveled from SOROBI (GEOCOORD: 42S WD
   > 6817430407), SOROBI District KABUL Province to their current location in
   > the MUSAYI District, KABUL Province, (GEOCOORD NOT AVAILABLE) NFI.  The
   > two individuals tasked with planting the IEDs will employ two types of
   > IEDs, these being remotely detonated IEDs and a supposedly new Chinese
   > made magnetic mine.  The three individuals tasked with conducting these
   > attacks will be assisted in entering KABUL City by a group of five
   > unidentified individuals, described as a KABUL Province criminal gang
   > that is associated with General AMANULLAH GOUZAR, the current KABUL City
   > Chief of Police.
   > (N/I R) The Chinese made magnetic mines were described as a metal plate
   > with a magnet attached to one side and the explosives to the other.  The
   > mines are to be planted on roads frequently used by ISAF and GOA forces
   > throughout KABUL, utilizing the snow as camouflage.  Reportedly, once a
   > vehicle drives over the camouflaged plated mine the magnetic side will
   > attach itself to the passing vehicle.  As the vehicle departs the area
   > one of the unidentified individuals acting as a spotter will contact the
   > second individual, who will be located on higher ground overlooking the
   > road, via a cellular phone notifying him the package was picked up.  In
   > addition, the spotter will also relay the vehicle description to include
   > its license plate number or vehicle description.  Once the second
   > individual receives this information and observes the vehicle he will
   > then remotely detonate the mine.  GUL reportedly has received
   > approximately 50 of these mines in order for them to carry out their
   > operation.
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > INS MEET TO PLAN AN SVBIED ATTACK
   > Organization(s) Involved: FOREIGN FIGHTERS,INTER-SERVICES INTELLIGENCE
   > DIRECTORATE,OPPOSING MILITANT FORCES
   > 14 JAN 2009, TF CASTLE INTSUM 4311, NSI
   >
   > (SECRET//REL TO USA, ISAF, NATO) AAF MOVE BLUE JINGLE TRUCK VBIED TO
   > SAROBI DISTRICT
   >
   > ON 5 JANUARY 2009, FROM 2100 TO 2300 HOURS LOCAL TIME, AAF COMMANDERS
   > ((NAZIR)), ((HALLIMULLAH)), ((MALANG)) BASED IN WANA, SOUTH WAZIRISTAN
   > AGENCY (SWA), FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED TRIBAL AREAS (FATA), PAKISTAN, HELD
   > A MEETING TO DISCUSS THEIR PLANS TO AVENGE THE DEATH OF ZAMARAI.  THE
   > MEETING WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENCE OF HAJI ((YACOUB)) IN WANA.  ALSO
   > IN ATTENDANCE WERE THREE UNIDENTIFIED OLDER ARAB MALES, WHO WERE
   > CONSIDERED IMPORTANT.  (SOURCE COMMENT:  THE ARABS WERE BELIEVED TO BE
   > IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEY HAD A LARGE SECURITY CONTINGENT WITH THEM.) AT
   > LEAST ONE OF THE THREE UNIDENTIFIED ARABS IN ATTENDANCE WAS PROFICIENT
   > IN THE PASHTUN LANGUAGE AND THE ARABS WERE ACCOMPANIED BY APPROXIMATELY
   > 20 ARAB BODYGUARDS.  ((HAMID GUL)), A FORMER MEMBER OF PAKISTAN'S
   > INTER-SERVICES INTELLIGENCE (ISI), WAS IN ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETING
   > ALSO.  HAMID GUL WAS DESCRIBED AS BEING AN OLDER MAN AND A VERY
   > IMPORTANT PERSON FROM ISI.  (COMMENT:  HAMID GUL WAS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
   > ISI FROM 1987-1989 AND, ACCORDING TO ISI, HAS NOT BEEN AN OFFICIAL WITH
   > ISI SINCE THAT TIME.  IT WAS NOT KNOWN WHETHER HAMID GUL WAS ACTING WITH
   > THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OF ISI, OR WHETHER ANY PORTIONS OF ISI WERE
   > AWARE OF HIS ACTIVITIES.)
   > THE MEETING ATTENDEES WERE SADDENED BY THE NEWS OF ZAMARAI'S DEATH AND
   > DISCUSSED PLANS TO COMPLETE ZAMARAI'S LAST MISSION BY FACILITATING THE
   > MOVEMENT OF A SUICIDE VEHICLE-BORNE IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE (SVBIED)
   > FROM PAKISTAN TO AFGHANISTAN THROUGH THE KHAN PASS, VARIANT:  KHAND
   > PASS.  (COMMENT:  THE KHAN PASS IS LOCATED IN SWA AND HAS BEEN
   > FREQUENTLY USED BY AAF AND ARAB FORCES IN THE PAST.)  THE SVBIED WAS
   > DESCRIBED AS A DARK BLUE MAZDA JINGA TRUCK WITH A GRAYISH WHITE HOOD.
   > AS OF 3 JANUARY, THE SVBIED WAS LOCATED IN AZAM WARSAK, SWA.  DURING THE
   > MEETING, THE ATTENDEES FORMULATED THE PLAN TO MOVE THE SVBIED, DRIVEN BY
   > AN UNIDENTIFIED ARAB, ON 10 JANUARY 2009 THROUGH THE KHAN PASS.  THE
   > MILITANTS PLANNED TO TARGET SAROBI, AFGHANISTAN, WITH THE SVBIED.
   > (COMMENT: SAROBI IS LIKELY A REFERENCE TO SAROBI DISTRICT, PAKTIKA
   > PROVINCE.) HAMID GUL ENCOURAGED THE AAF LEADERS TO FOCUS THEIR OPERATION
   > INSIDE OF AFGHANISTAN IN EXCHANGE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN'S
   > SECURITY FORCES TURNING A BLIND EYE TO THE PRESENCE OF AAF COMMANDERS
   > AND FIGHTERS IN PAKISTAN (NFI).  ADDITIONALLY, THE AAF LEADERS APPROVED
   > A PLAN TO SEND 50 ARAB AND 50 WAZIRI FIGHTERS TO GHAZNI PROVINCE,
   > AFGHANISTAN IN EARLY FEBRUARY 2009.  ACCORDING TO HAMID GUL, THE AERIAL
   > THREATS IN THE AREA WERE CONTROLLED FROM THE AIRPORT IN WANA.
   >
   >
   > scott stewart wrote:
   >>
   >> Thanks. Matt Powers from Research is working it too.
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >> *From:* ct-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:ct-bounces@stratfor.com] *On
   >> Behalf Of *Ryan Abbey
   >> *Sent:* Monday, July 26, 2010 1:26 PM
   >> *To:* CT AOR
   >> *Subject:* Re: [CT] FW: Guidance on the leaks
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >> On it.
   >>
   >>
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
   >>
   >> *From: *\"scott stewart\" <scott.stewart@stratfor.com>
   >> *To: *\"CT AOR\" <ct@stratfor.com>
   >> *Sent: *Monday, July 26, 2010 1:16:40 PM
   >> *Subject: *[CT] FW: Guidance on the leaks
   >>
   >> Ryan and Colby,
   >>
   >>
   >> Can you guys please look into this?
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >> *From:* scott stewart [mailto:scott.stewart@stratfor.com]
   >> *Sent:* Monday, July 26, 2010 1:15 PM
   >> *To:* 'Analyst List'
   >> *Cc:* 'CT AOR'
   >> *Subject:* RE: Guidance on the leaks
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >> Yes, it would be good to know where the information on Gul came from.
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >> Ia**ll get some people on it.
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >> *From:* analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
   >> [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com] *On Behalf Of *George Friedman
   >> *Sent:* Monday, July 26, 2010 1:09 PM
   >> *To:* analysts@stratfor.com
   >> *Subject:* Guidance on the leaks
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >> There was a huge amount of low level information in the leaks.  It was
   >> overwhelmingly low level tactical reports and trivia.
   >>
   >> There was one thing in them that wasn't.  That was the stuff that
   >> concerned ISI operations in Afghanistan as well as memos on
   >> conversations between senior U.S. officials and Pakistani officials.
   >> That stuff had much higher clearance and ought not have been in
   >> databases containing after-action reports by small units.  The ISI is
   >> technically friendly intelligence agency and the discussion of their
   >> covert operations in Afghanistan potentially reveals sources and
   >> methods that are tightly compartmentalized, if for no other reason
   >> than to keep the political fallout for a minimum.
   >>
   >> As in any intelligence dump, I'm not interested in 99 percent of the
   >> stuff.  It is this 1 percent that interests me for two reasons.
   >> First, it should not have resided in the same database as the other
   >> stuff.  Second, very few people should have clearance to both
   >> databases on a need to know basis. In other words, the person with
   >> access to the ISI file might have clearance to tactical combat
   >> reports, but normally he would be noticed accessing them.
   >>
   >> Regardless of classification, all systems have document tracking and
   >> basic usage warnings. If someone were to access all of these
   >> documents, he would be noticed.  So the issue is first, what was the
   >> ISI file doing mingled with tactical intelligence and who who would
   >> have the ability and need to access both, because at this level of
   >> usage, he would be noticed.
   >>
   >> In a case like this, you ignore the 99 percent.  You focus on the 1
   >> percent that shouldn't have been buried.
   >>
   >> I need someone to search what is available for information on ISI and
   >> Gul.  See what you can find.  I am going to hold the Weekly until this
   >> is done.
   >>
   >> --
   >>
   >> George Friedman
   >>
   >> Founder and CEO
   >>
   >> Stratfor
   >>
   >> 700 Lavaca Street
   >>
   >> Suite 900
   >>
   >> Austin, Texas 78701
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >> Phone  512-744-4319
   >>
   >> Fax  512-744-4334
   >>
   >>
   >>
   >> --
   >> Ryan Abbey
   >> Tactical Intern
   >> Stratfor
   >> ryan.abbey@stratfor.com
   >>
   >
   > --
   > Matthew Powers
   > STRATFOR Research ADP
   > Matthew.Powers@stratfor.com
   >
","2010-07-26 20:54:24",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/364817_fw-ct-fw-guidance-on-the-leaks-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","longbow99@earthlink.net",""
365135,"Re: [CT] Afghan Sources in Wikileaks
","   He's a dumb ass

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"scott stewart\" <scott.stewart@stratfor.com>
   Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:18:03 -0400
   To: 'Fred Burton'<burton@stratfor.com>
   Subject: FW: [CT] Afghan Sources in Wikileaks

   He might enjoy prison...

    

    

   From: ct-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:ct-bounces@stratfor.com] On Behalf
   Of Fred Burton
   Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 2:12 PM
   To: CT AOR
   Subject: Re: [CT] Afghan Sources in Wikileaks

    

   I think they are setting Manning up for a Treason prosecution (death
   penalty) and a life plea if he rolls over on others.

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Matthew Powers <matthew.powers@stratfor.com>

   Sender: ct-bounces@stratfor.com

   Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:03:47 -0500

   To: CT >> 'CT AOR'<ct@stratfor.com>

   ReplyTo: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>

   Subject: [CT] Afghan Sources in Wikileaks

    

   Below are a few of the leaked documents that appear to out Afghan
   informants, with relevant sections bolded.  Certainly not an exhaustive
   list, am only up through March 2007, likely many more, but did not want
   e-mail to become unwieldy. 

   3/27/2007 4:30

   Size and Composition of Patrol:  29 x US, 1 x CAT 1 TERP, 30 x ANA (6 x
   HMMWVs, 3 x Ford Rangers)

   A.Type of patrol:Mounted AND Dismounted

   B.Task and Purpose of Patrol: 3/C conducts leader engagement, QA/QC of
   various projects, and ANP assessment in Sar Hawze district vicinity WB 015
   645 NLT 270430MAR07, in order to assess governance and security conditions
   of the district and provide support to the district level government.   

   C.Time of Return: 1100Z

   D.Routes used and Approximate times from point A to B:
              
   >From Grid/FOB To Grid/FOB Route Travel
   FOB OE Sar Hawze District center RTE Jeep / Navigator (100 mins), 10-25
   km/h
   Sar Hawze District center FOB OE RTE Navigator / Jeep (100 mins), 10-25
   km/h

   E.Disposition of routes used: RTE Jeep remains green, however, river
   crossings are becoming slightly more difficult due to the highly
   trafficked bypasses.  Water levels appear to be average, but the roads
   leading to the crossings are degraded significantly.  The grid WB 10602
   47169 remains treacherous, as LNs have dug away at the mountain to allow
   traffic to pass, however, the erosion next to the road will
   catastrophically fail during the next influx of precipitation.  RTE
   Navigator remains amber at best, and is still heavily pitted and deformed
   from the hundreds of potholes caused by heavy traffic and rainfall. 
   Recommend to propose RTE Navigator as a road project. 
       

   F.Intelligence: (HUMINT/PROPHET/OBSERVATION): Conducted a private meeting
   with one of the police chiefs sources.  His name is Abdul Rahman.  In this
   meeting he told us that earlier this morning he spotted Engineer Mujeed
   along with 25 other personnel.  He said that Mujeed was heavily armed and
   was in the middle of a movement near the town of Kandele.  We were told
   that the group was split into 2 groups.  One of 12 and the other 14.  This
   source told that he has only seen Mujeed twice before in his life but was
   certain it was him.  The groups were wearing predominantly black and white
   garb, and there was a donkey spotted with them.  The source, Rahman,
   informed us that he was moving about an historic area in the vicinity of
   Kandele, a small village consisting of two compounds.  Additionally, Wali
   Mohammed said that he enjoys freedom of maneuver in the area and he has
   occupied a fighting position/cave in that area.  When asked how far away
   the group was spotted, the source estimated about 30km to the north
   northeast.  The group was armed with AK-47s, RPGs, and rockets (probably
   RPGs).  The source has reported to Wali Muhammad  that the last time
   Mujeed was in the area approximately 6 months ago, he came to Rahmans
   compound and burned supplies given to him by coalition forces and
   threatened to kill people the next time the LNs cooperate or receive
   anything from the CFs.  At the time of reporting, Wali Mohammad said he
   had his ANP out in Sar Hawze investigating to see if they could gather
   more information.  The source also told us that the only way to get to his
   location was to dismount vehicles in the vicinity of WB 075 603, the
   village of Towdabay, and move into the mountains.  Rahman seemed genuinely
   concerned for the safety of Sar Hawze, and even more so, he appeared to be
   very loyal to Wali Mohammed.  Rahman was open with his information,
   appeared to rattle off the information quickly, and was formerly a UNAMA
   employee.  It is interesting to note, Wali Mohammed  has a lot of support
   from the local people and will be a key player for future missions.  He
   has started an informant program (unknown how it is funded) that employs
   multiple sources to gain intelligence for him.  The sources include a
   female source that works all around the district, and a special source in
   the village of Martsak  currently, the Martsak source is in Miram Shah
   conducting intelligence gathering for Wali Mohammed.  The sources report
   to Wali Mohammed at random times, but roughly once a month.  Wali Mohammed
   was very careful in protecting the sources identify  he removed all
   unnecessary personnel from the room, only allowing his bodyguard and us to
   remain.  NFTR.

   G.Local Nationals encountered:  
   Name: Wali Mohammed
   Position: Police Chief of Sar Hawze
   Location: Sar Hawze district center
   General Information:  Today, Wali Mohammed was very anxious to inform us
   that one of his sources had information regarding Engineer Mujeed  this is
   the second time he has reported information on Mujeed in the past 4 days. 
   He appears to remain concerned for the safety of his people, and was very
   willing to accompany our patrol to assess the projects in his village. 
   Today was a major IO victory, as the villagers of Sar Hawze were able to
   see US forces, ANP from Sar Hawze, elders of Sar Hawze, and ANA all
   working together as one, cooperating to improve the village of Sar Hawze
   as we walked from project to project.  As mentioned above, Wali Mohammed
   impressed us with his use of LN sources to gain situational awareness on
   enemy activity in his district.  This is something never before seen in AO
   Destroyer, and we were quite pleased with his proactivty and concern. 

   Name: Pir Mohommed
   Position: Sar Hawze Elder
   Location: Sar Hawze district center
   General Information:   Despite the abrupt ending to our engagement with
   him at FOB OE, he was not upset at all with US forces and greeted very
   warmly with hugs.  He was escorted by Ghulam, and immediately asked us how
   we were doing and was very receptive our visit.  He was happy to see us
   because of our developing relationship and also because of our frequent
   visits.  We spoke to him about the projects and our last visit  he showed
   us all of the projects sites as promised in our last engagement and was
   extremely friendly.  We believe atmospherics in the village were
   significantly more positive due to our growing relationship with Pir
   Mohammed. 

   Name: Abdul Rahman
   Position: Source for Wali Mohammed
   Location: Sar Hawze district center
   General Information:   Kharooti tribe, Sipadre sub-tribe, and his fathers
   name is Mohammed Hussein.  He was very straight forward and got to the
   point.  He provided all information he knew, and also answered all
   questions that we had for him.  He was relaxed being around coalition
   forces, even the ANA commander, and seemed genuinely concerned.  Although
   we cannot verify, the manner in which he provided information to us seemed
   to be honest.  We look forward to hearing follow-up reports from him, and
   he mentioned that he would return to Wali Mohammed with further
   information on Mujeed as soon as it became available.  He seemed very
   loyal to Wali Mohammed and the objective of gathering intelligence.

   3/23/2007 0:00

   SUBJECT:  

   Size and Composition of Patrol:  18x US, 1x Cat 1 TERP

   A.Type of patrol:Mounted

   B.Task and Purpose of Patrol: 1/D/2-87 IN conducts Leader Engagement/HCA
   Distro in Sharmakhel and Moni Khel NLT 0900z 22 MAR 2007 and 0700z 23 MAR
   2007 IOT conduct win support of the people of Afghanistan and assess
   effectiveness of IROA leadership.

   C.Time of Return:

   D.Routes used and Approximate times from point A to B:
              
   >From Grid/FOB To Grid/FOB Route Travel
   Margha COB Sharmakhel RTE EXCEL 10-15 km/h
   Sharmakhel Margha COB RTE EXCEL 10-15 km/h
   Margha COB Moni Khel RTE EXCEL 10-15 km/h
   Moni Khel Margha COB RTE EXCEL 10-15 km/h

   E.Local Nationals encountered: 
   A.
   Name: Shabib
   Fathers Name: Habib Gul
   Tribe: Babubli
   Sub-tribe: Haji Khel
   Village:  Marghah
   Location: Marghah COB
   Position: Informant
   General Information:
   Reported that Zardran (commander) is holding a meeting in about 2-3 days
   with about 300-400 Taliban. He is planning on holding the meeting at
   Mameed Millah, which is a large compound located on a mountain near the
   village of Harseen. He stated that the 300-400 Taliban are staging at
   Miramshah. Shabib received this information from his brother who is a Taxi
   driver, who goes from Marghah to Miramshah Pakistan. The informant stated
   that his motive for giving us the information was that his nephew is in
   the ANA at Bermel and he wanted to protect him.

   B.
   Name: Adam Khan
   Fathers Name: Hajab Khan 
   Tribe: Safiuli
   Sub-tribe: Misman Khel
   Village: Moni Khel
   Location: Moni Khel
   General Information:
   We engaged him and a few of his neighbors about the local area. He stated
   that they are pleased to see that the Americans have built a COB at
   Marghah but he was concerned that it was not safe for the herders in the
   area because they go into the mountains to retrieve there sheep and goats.
   He is worried that we would think that the herders were Taliban. He also
   wanted us to try to build a dam because it would benefit all of the local
   farmers.

   C.
   Name: Akbar
   Fathers Name: Shawa Khan   
   Tribe:  Shaifali
   Sub-tribe: Sharmakhel
   Village: Sharmakhel
   Position: Grocery store owner
   Location: Sharmakhel
   General Information:
   Spoke with him for about 15 minutes. We spoke about his local business. He
   stated that 50-80 people visit his shop everyday and the shop is opened
   from 7AM to about 6 PM. He was not overly happy about the COB and wasnt
   really receptive to our presence. He really wasnt interested in hearing
   what we had to say.

   F.Disposition of local security:
   G.HCA Products Distributed: 8 water Jugs, 10 boxes of chai, 4 cans of baby
   formula, 10 bags of flour, 20 notebooks

   H.Atmospherics: (reception of HCA, reactions to ANSF and Coalition forces,
   etc): In both of the villages that we visited the children were the first
   to greet us. After about 5 minutes the adult males from the villages came
   out to speak with us. They were real receptive to the HCA and wanted us to
   help the villages more. 

   I.Afghan Conservation Corps nominations/Status:

   J.Conclusion and Recommendation (Patrol Leader): (Include to what extent
   the mission was accomplished and recommendations as to patrol equipment
   and tactics.)

   The mission was accomplished. The tailgate med caps have been effective in
   the past and we should see positive results from them in the local area
   around the COP. We need to continue to engage the Local villages around
   the COP in order to build a good relationship between the locals and team
   headhunter which will increase the amount of walk in sources. Nothing
   further.

   12/5/2006 0:00

   Meeting with COL Shahwali, ANP Provincial Officer. Discussion Items:
   During lunch, discussed the recent NY Times article which discussed the
   poor ANP. Shahwali says MoI has said the article is incorrect.  I told him
   I believe the comments regarding poor accountability and corruption were
   correct.  We discussed it in some
   more detail.

   Discussed several bits of information:

   1) Moulawi Sharrif, occassionally operating in his property in Janikhel
   district, near Shakhilabad, but
   usually in Pakistan or Dubai (where he owns a business) is still
   supporting TB activities financially and was involved in the murder of
   Adam Khan, former Shakhilabad SG.  His nephew, Sayed Sanad, was captured
   and killed by the tribe of Adam Khan after the murder.  Five others were
   detained and confessed to complicity in the murder but the tribe asked for
   their release, saying the killing of Sayed was retribution enough. Most of
   this has been reported before, to include the info re: Moulawi Shariff. 
   Niam, a farmer in JK, maintains Shariff&amp;amp;apos;s property and
   interests in his absence.

   2) an ANP informant went to Auband, Ghazni and spoke to Moulawi
   Shamsullah, reportedly a very influential TB leader... he said that the
   one legged mullah in Mest, at the Kalagee Mosque is still greatly
   influencing the mullahs and TB in the areas around Mest and KK.  Other
   information pertaining to the one legged (missing right leg) nameless
   Mullah suggests he was associated with the S-BAD DC burning and the
   assassination of Adam Khan.  Adam Khan&amp;amp;apos;s wife reported seeing
   a one legged man leading activity the night of Khan&amp;amp;apos;s murder.

   3) Gul Mohammad, owns a pharmacy in Shakhilabad, from KK, gave fuel to TB
   for the burning of the SBAD DC.  Prior to the attack, Gul reportedly
   inflated the numbers and tried to scare the locals and the ANP (told them
   to give their weapons to the TB if they attacked), said 60 - 70 men were
   going to attack IOT scare ANP away.

   We discussed the fact that ANP should detain individuals they believe are
   complicit in crimes.  Numerous excuses were made by the SBAD SG. 
   Discussed the MK event a week ago re: Taj Mohammad, further ingerpointing
   between ANP and ANA, discussed the need for ANSF cooperation.

   Discussed ongoing district center project, Ajmal Khan asked for us to ask
   the contractor to stop work as the concrete cannot settle any more this
   season and to resume work in the spring.

   Re: solar lights in district, asked for the lights to be emplaced soon
   before the holes ice up and work is no longer possible.  Holes are dug and
   ready.

   Requested Ajmal Khan bring us a list of needy families in SBAD for
   possible HA distro.

   Shahwali said that EN Mujeed has come down from his mountain area and is
   living somewhere else in Sar Hawza.  Shawali will try to get more
   information.  Says many locals in Paktika believe Mujeed is being paid by
   the GoA or CF and that is why no one is taking any action against him. 
   Reported by the Shura in a meeting with SH SG Qadir Gul,
   Mujeed&amp;amp;apos;s men fired an RPG at a CF helo that flew overhead 3
   days ago, no contact.

   end of report.

   Additional Meeting Attendees: Ajmal Khan, Shakhilabad Sub-Governor; Ajmal,
   linguist
    
   PRT Assessment: It was a good chance to meet Ajmal Khan.  He is full of
   excuses on why he and his ANP cannot do things.  Blamed numerous things
   other than their own ineffectiveness.  Shahwali, as always, was full of
   information and cooperative.

   11/19/2006 0:00

   Meeting with Afghan National Security Force. Meeting led by Govenor Gulab
   Mangol to Discuss the upcoming Operation West Hammer. Discussion Items:
   Role of the CF; Role of the ANP; Role fo the ANA; Use of Auxillary ANP/
   Local Tribemen; CSS Plan for resupply and payment of Auxillary ANP;
   Location of enemy and denial enemy movement.
    
   Problem Mitigation Before Next Meeting: The kandak XO and the ANP CoP will
   talk with Alishang CoP and Elder Ashraf from Gonopol seperately about
   supporting the GioA and the CF for Alishang with people and weapons
    
   Additional Meeting Attendees: ANA Kandak XO, Jon; ANP Provincial CoP
   Omaryar; PRT Commander Lt Col Bredenkamp; PRT S2 CPT Lendo; PRT PTAT Team
   Chief TSgt Pacheco; Dyn-Corp Team Chief Mark.
    
   The PRT informed the GoA officially of the existence of Operation West
   Hammer and what the CF were planning on doing during the operation. The
   PRT informed the Governor, as well as the ANA and the ANP about the plan
   and asked for thier input on how the PRT can positively affect the
   province with the help of the GoA. The Governor was very supportive but
   could not understand that this operation is a shaping operation for future
   kinetic Operation to be conducted by 4/82nd ABN BN. He was very happy that
   it would happy. He was concerned that the enemy would escape through the
   mountains and return to terrorize the people after we leave. He was
   concerned about the ANSF and the CF would not be able to close with and
   kill the enemy becuase the enemy would leave when they heard the CF
   coming. He was concerned that we would not know where the enemy was
   concentrated and spend ost of our time looking for them. He was concerned
   that the collateral damage be limited and that the women, children, and
   non-combatants be able to leave a village before the CF and ANSF engaged
   the insurgents in the villages. He also stressed the need for OPSEC with
   his people and stressed that the operation not leave the room.

   He also mentioned that Zier Jon, who is a THT informant, is a double agent
   and that he provides most of his data to the enemy.
   The Kandak XO breifed the plan to incorporate the Alishang CoP and why he
   has the most to loose or to gain. He was the right person for the job
   becuase he was able to explain it with description and first hand
   knowledge. It was also good that it came from him as to make it look like
   an Afghan Plan and not a US plan that we were pushing on the Afghans.

   The provincial CoP had a few issues with the plan about Command and
   Control etc. His first issue was where the people that we are planning on
   using are coming from. When we explained it he was very interested in
   bringing them under the umbrella of the ANP as to have C2 on them and not
   to create a warlord out of the Alishang CoP. We all agreed on this. We
   should be able to bring them under the employment of ANP augmentees. He
   was also concerned about feeding them and paying them. This was taken care
   of when we said that they
   would be paid as augmentees. Our commander brought up a good point though.
   Why do these people ned money to fight when they fought the Russians
   without pay. The answer was that they needed money to feed thier
   familites. MTF. The CDR also brought up the fact there is a man in the
   Gonopol, an elder named Ashraf, that has offered to assist the CF and the
   GoA if and when they enter the Gonopol. The ANA XO and the CoP said that
   they would ask Ashraf to come in and they would look into using him, if
   not for forces to help, than for PID purposes. The meeting was concluded
   with the Governor asking for the next ANSF meeting to be held at the PRT
   with nly the ANA, ANP, PRT, and Gov in attendence. The S2 asked why the
   NDS was not involved and the Gov stated that they could not trust the NDS
   director. This is telling of the current relatiohsip with the NDS. Alot to
   do with DR. Abdullah no doubt. The ANA XO and the ANP CoP stated that they
   would have a COA drawn up for submission to the Govenor on Tues at the
   ANSF meeting at the PRT. This will be first ANSF meeting in over 2 months.
   Definitley a step in the right direction.

   1/28/2004 0:00

   TRANSLATION OF A NIGHT LETTER IVO ORGUN-E: THE POLICE CHIEF OF ZORMAT PD
   GAVE THE LETTER TO USSF.  IT WAS HAND WRITTEN ON A PRINTED TALIBAN
   LETTERHEAD.  THE LETTERHEAD IS PRINTED IN PASHTO AND ENGLISH.  THE POLICE
   CHIEF STATES THAT THE LETTER WAS PASSED TO AN INFORMANT (WOULD NOT
   DISCLOSE ID) FROM MAULAWE ABDUL RAZAAQ. RAZAAQ CLAIMS TO BE A DISAFFECTED
   MEMBER OF THE ZORMAT AREA TALIBAN.  RAZAAQ STATED THAT A MEETING OF THE
   ADDRESSORS WAS HELD AT THE VILLAGE OF SULTANI, NEAR ORGUN-E.  POLICE CHIEF
   STATES THAT THE TERM &amp;amp;quot;PISTOL&amp;amp;quot; REFERS TO A
   PEN-TYPE ZIP GUN THAT FIRES A SMALL CALIBER PISTOL ROUND.  THE CONTACT
   PROVIDED HIM WITH SUCH A DEVICE AND HE TURNED IT OVER TO US.  THE LETTER
   WAS WRITTEN ON 22 JAN 04 AND READS:

   HELLO MY FRIENDS, BROTHER ABDULLAH, DR. SARWAR, MAULAWE KHILOLAH, DEAR
   MULLAH AKHTAR, HAJI JUMA GUL, MULLAH HAJI SHER.

   FROM SAFE RAHMAN MONSUR, GUL RAHMAN, MAULAWE ABDUL RAZAAQ, AMIR MOHAMMED
   SUMADI,

   DR. SARWAR SHOULD KNOW THAT GUL RAHMAN&amp;amp;apos;&amp;amp;apos;S FAMILY
   NEEDS MONEY. TELL HIS FAMILY THAT GUL RAHMAN WAS INJURED BUT IS FINE NOW.
   AND DEAR DR. SARWAR, THE FOUR MOTORCYCLES THAT WE SENT ARE FOR MULLAH
   AKHTAR, ALUM GUL, KHUDI NAZER, AND HAJI SHER.  EACH INDIVIDUAL IS ALSO TO
   RECEIVE 10,000 RUPEES. AND ANYONE WHO NEEDS A PISTOL, PLEASE GIVE HIM ONE.
   OUR JIHAD WILL NEVER BE OVER AGAINST THE CHRISTIANS AND JEWS.  DO NOT
   ALLOW PEOPLE TO TAKE A VOTER CARD.  DROP FLIERS AT EVERYONES HOME TELLING
   THEM NOT TO VOTE. THOSE THAT DO WILL HAVE NO REASON TO COMPLAIN BECAUSE OF
   THE CONSEQUENCES.

   FROM GUL RAHMAN, HELLO TO MY FRIEND DR. SARWAR. AND FROM GAMAR DEN, ZURMAT
   SAYS THAT DR. SARWAR KNOWS AHMED ZI, THE SECURITY GUARD OF THE ZORMAT
   BAZAAR, IS TO RECEIVE 5,000 RUPEES BECAUSE HE IS HELPING OUR FRIENDS VERY
   MUCH. 

   PLEASE SEND RESPONSE BACK BY ABDULLAH OF AHMED KHIEL VILLAGE AND PLEASE
   DR. SARWAR PAY OUR MEN AND YOU WILL BE PAID BACK BY ABDUL RAZAAQ.  DEAR
   DR. SARWAR, YOU TOLD ME THAT YOU HAD PREPARED 15 PEOPLE WHO WERE READY FOR
   JIHAD BUT ONLY TWO HAVE SHOWN UP.
","2010-08-02 20:19:43",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/365135_re-ct-afghan-sources-in-wikileaks-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","scott.stewart@stratfor.com",""
368059,"FW: Terrorism Intelligence Report - Security Contractors in Iraq: Tactical -- and Practical -- Considerations
","   From a senior FBI Hqs agent and former DSS agent. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: jimcasey58@aol.com [mailto:jimcasey58@aol.com]
   Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:43 PM
   To: burton@stratfor.com
   Subject: Re: Terrorism Intelligence Report - Security Contractors in Iraq:
   Tactical -- and Practical -- Considerations
   Good Stuff Fred! I can just picture you and I strapping on a big 'ol one
   and leading a Blackwater team into a dangerous motorcade!  OK, so maybe
   the most dangerous thing we do is cut in line at Starbucks.  We're
   too old (and smart) for this other shit.  Jim 
    
","2007-10-12 14:22:35",1,"2012-03-01 23:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/368059_fw-terrorism-intelligence-report-security-contractors-in.html","burton@stratfor.com","","stewart@stratfor.com,responses@stratfor.com",""
369305,"WikiLeaks
","Jim:  How bad will the next round be?  Got any idea?  Thx

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
","2010-11-27 19:45:40",1,"2012-03-01 23:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/369305_wikileaks-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","jimcasey58@aol.com",""
369979,"Re: WikiLeaks question
","Did that one enlisted Army dude leak all that stuff?  

------Original Message------
From: Michael Posillico
To: Fred Burton {6}
Subject: Re: WikiLeaks question
Sent: Nov 27, 2010 12:50 PM

No but the G is very concerned particularly on Iraq traffic which will expose the underbelly of our role

----- Original Message -----
From: burton@stratfor.com <burton@stratfor.com>
To: Posillico, Michael
Sent: Sat Nov 27 13:42:33 2010
Subject: WikiLeaks question

Mike:  How bad will the next round be?  Got any idea?  Thx

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T


Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
","2010-11-27 20:01:54",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/369979_re-wikileaks-question-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","PosillicoM2@state.gov",""
370352,"Re: Julian Assange arrest
","   Revenge is a dish best served cold.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"William \\"Bill\\" O'Chee\" <william@himalayaconsulting.biz>
   Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 21:57:49 +1000
   To: <burton@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: Julian Assange arrest
   Sadly he didn't have a car accident on the way there.
   William Oa**Chee
   aa**aa\"*aa>>* 
   Partner
   Himalaya Consulting
   Australia:      +61 422 688886
   China mob:  +86 1365 1001069
   On 07/12/2010, at 9:52 PM, burton@stratfor.com wrote:

     Thx

     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"William \\"Bill\\" O'Chee\" <william@himalayaconsulting.biz>
     Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 21:23:40 +1000
     To: <fred.burton@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Julian Assange arrest
     Dear Fred,
     In Jen's absence, I thought I should send you this:
     http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikileaks-founder-arrested-in-london-20101207-18ogq.html
     Hooray!
     Best regards,
     William Oa**Chee
     aa**aa\"*aa>>* 
     Partner
     Himalaya Consulting
     Australia:      +61 422 688886
     China mob:  +86 1365 1001069
","2010-12-07 13:27:46",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/370352_re-julian-assange-arrest-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","william@himalayaconsulting.biz",""
373613,"Re: Athens:  COS Welch Killing
","   Fred,
    
   I remember very little about the Welch case.  I believe 17 November was
   responsible and it wouldn't be surprised if an FSN didn't collaborate,
   which led to his assassination.  I just can't remember!   After returning
   from my tour in Israel, I was assigned to OSO as a senior Inspector. 
   Greece was a critical threat for terrorism Post and one of the posts we
   inspected because of 17 November (Marxist-Leninist) terrorists attacks and
   the Greek Government's inability to stop them.  As I remember, many
   believed the government was infiltrated by 17 November members and as you
   are well aware, the Greeks kept a close eye on U.S. Diplomats to identify
   intelligence officers; FSN's would have no problem knowing who was or who
   was not an intelligence officer.  Unfortunately, Welch would have been
   easily identified and targeted not only by the Greek Government, but 17
   November.
    
   Steve
    
   In a message dated 4/17/2011 1:34:11 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
   burton@stratfor.com writes:

     Steve:

     I've heard from a pretty good Agency source that Welch was set up by an
     Embassy FSN. 

     Have you ever heard that?

     Thanks much, Fred

     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
","2011-04-18 02:33:29",1,"2012-03-03 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/373613_re-athens-cos-welch-killing-.html","SRG47@aol.com","","burton@stratfor.com",""
373667,"Re: Research Question
","   Carlos was captured in August 1994.  Bruget disappears in November 1995.   
   I do not  believe the intell on Carlos came from Bruget.  It came from the 
   Sudanese who wanted to regain our favor after we put them on our           
   state-sponsored list.  I do not see our hands in the Bruget disappearance  
   - not really our style.  Not French, Swiss ( he was a                      
   Swiss citizen), or German syles either.  Israelis would have no reason to  
   go after him - Carlos yes, but not Bruget.  No, I think either one of the  
   Palestinian terrorist groups or an Arab intell service did this.  Of       
   course, Bruget could have planned this disappearance.  Maybe he is in a    
   small dacha in Argentina (sic)?  No Fred, I think this is an Arab hit but  
   we will never be sure.                                                     
                                                                              
   May I ask why you are interested in this case?  Book subject?  Heard you   
   wrote one on the 1970s murder of the Israeli air attache in Maryland - a   
   BSO hit.                                                                   
                                                                              
   Regards                                                                    
                                                                              
                                                                              
   --- On Mon, 4/25/11, Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com> wrote:              
                                                                              
     From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>                                  
     Subject: Re: Research Question                                           
     To: \"Dennis Pluchinsky\" <dpluchinsky@rocketmail.com>                     
     Date: Monday, April 25, 2011, 9:34 AM                                    
                                                                              
     Hummm....I seem to recall us tipping off the Frogs to Carlos'            
     whereabouts in The Sudan.  Is it feasible we flipped Bruget and he was   
     used to locate Carlos?                                                   
                                                                              
     On 4/25/2011 11:32 AM, Dennis Pluchinsky wrote:                          
                                                                              
       Bruget and Koop were arrested in early 1980s, not 1990s.               
                                                                              
       All open source info states he disappeared on November 12, 1995.       
       Either kidnapped and killed by an intelligence agency or               
       Palestinians.  Simply put, a mystery.  How important is this to you?   
       I could use a chit and contact a former RAF analyst at the BfV who is  
       now retired and ask him.  Personally, I think Bruget was killed by     
       either Syrian, or Iraqi intelligence services because of his knowledge 
       of Carlos' work for these states.  You must know that Carlos published 
       his bio in 2004 and in 2009 sent President Obama a letter asking for   
       help in finding Bruget - all open source.  Proof on who kidnapped /    
       killed Bruget will be hard to come by - but a lot speculations.  As    
       you know, there are many mysteries in this field that will never be    
       solved.                                                                
                                                                              
       --- On Mon, 4/25/11, Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com> wrote:          
                                                                              
         From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>                              
         Subject: Re: Research Question                                       
         To: \"Dennis Pluchinsky\" <dpluchinsky@rocketmail.com>                 
         Date: Monday, April 25, 2011, 9:10 AM                                
                                                                              
         What happened to him?  Was he rendered?                              
                                                                              
         On 4/25/2011 11:09 AM, Dennis Pluchinsky wrote:                      
                                                                              
           Yes, he was arrested in Paris in the 1990s along with Carlos's     
           girlfriend Magadelan Koop.  Carlos carried out several attacks on  
           French targets and even sent a threat letter to the French         
           Minister of interior.  French held fast.  Both were eventually     
           released.  Koop in Venezuela and Bruguet disappeared ....          
                                                                              
           --- On Mon, 4/25/11, Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com> wrote:      
                                                                              
             From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>                          
             Subject: Research Question                                       
             To: dpluchinsky@rocketmail.com                                   
             Date: Monday, April 25, 2011, 9:00 AM                            
                                                                              
             Hello Dennis,                                                    
                                                                              
             Do you recall a terrorist by the name of Bruno Breguet, who      
             disappeared                                                      
             in 1995 on a ferry from Italy to Greece?                         
                                                                              
             He was linked to Carlos.                                         
                                                                              
             Thanks much, Fred                                                
","2011-04-25 18:44:22",1,"2012-03-05 16:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/373667_re-research-question-.html","dpluchinsky@rocketmail.com","","burton@stratfor.com",""
373680,"Re: Bruno Breguet
","   In a message dated 4/25/2011 11:21:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
   burton@stratfor.com writes:

     http://www.heraldscotland.com/carlos-the-jackal-asks-obama-for-help-in-tracking-down-disappeared-terrorist-1.829024

   Fred,
    
   I remember him and I never heard the CIA had taken him.  Back in 1995 they
   didn't do that.  The Agency didn't even snatch Carlos back then.  He was
   running around so publicly that anyone could have taken him if they
   wanted.  With all the information he had in his head, I'd be surprised if
   his former associates would let him leave the life that easily.  Nov 17
   was such a secret organization that if he knew any of them and thought
   about going straight (and possibly talking), they would have killed him. 
   Nobody really ever talked about Nov 17, so killing him would have been a
   good example to anyone who was contemplating it.
    
   The French incident where they tried to blow up the power plant was the
   one the Amcit was involved in.  I thought he did some time in France
   before moving on to Greece, as did Kopp and Bruguet. 
    
   Scott
","2011-04-26 14:37:59",1,"2012-03-03 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/373680_re-bruno-breguet-.html","Trippsb@aol.com","","burton@stratfor.com",""
373798,"Re: Athens and Welch killing
","   In a message dated 4/23/2011 12:28:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
   burton@stratfor.com writes:

     Scott - Was Carlos linked to Nov 17?   Thanks

     On 4/23/2011 11:10 AM, Trippsb@aol.com wrote:

       He may have been stationed there, but there was a Nov 17 task force
       that operated for years running down every lead (and I mean every, I
       located one of the nephews of an American associate of Carlos, who had
       close ties to Nov 17 so they could pitch him, another thing that never
       made it into my EERs).  It included natives, native speakers, former
       case officers stationed there...some very good people, among the best
       I worked with.  I'm sure they would have run that lead to ground.  My
       first case out there was trashing one of their sources who they cut
       off right away.  I knew a lot of what they were doing, especially when
       it came to embassy employees because I could access their files
       without anyone getting upset at the Agency looking at FSNs or
       employees.  Some of the DO officers can never admit they were wrong. 
       It goes to the narcissism that makes them good at what they do.
        
       Sorry we missed you in DC.  I got a really crappy cold and breathing
       all over everyone and hacking on them would have made me wildly
       popular.
        
       Scott
        
       In a message dated 4/23/2011 9:47:40 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
       burton@stratfor.com writes:

         The source claims he was stationed in Athens w/the DO and the COS
         dismissed the allegation w/out further investigation. 

         On 4/22/2011 8:22 PM, Trippsb@aol.com wrote:

           In a message dated 4/17/2011 1:32:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
           burton@stratfor.com writes:

             Scott,

             I've heard from a pretty good Agency source that Welch was set
             up by an Embassy FSN. 

             Have you ever heard that?

             Thanks much, Fred

             Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

           Fred,
            
           No, and I worked with the task force chasing them.  It was a sub
           group under Mike Freeman...
            
           Scott

   Fred,
    
   I don't remember any direct links.  There were people who were Carlos
   associates who lived or to Greece, that kind of thing.  The fellow
   travelers of terrorism.  The theory was that they all knew each other so
   maybe you could follow the daisy chain, like drug cases, one would give
   you another higher up.  One was an American who was a Carlos associate in
   France (?) who blew up a communication tower if I remember correctly. 
   Either he or his wife (she wasn't a US cit) were the ones of interest.  I
   found a relative here, who I passed off to the N17 people, who they were
   going to use to contact him.  I did several of those (N17, Sikhs) and once
   they were comfortable with me, I'd pass them off to the \"pros\".  The guy
   was also traveling to the US for the first big World Bank radical pissing
   match, but I was never able to find him in the huge gaggle and they didn't
   want him picked off at port of entry by INS, not to mention they weren't
   sure INS would really find him when he entered, nor were they very
   enamored that INS would be able to do it gently, vice hammering the guy.
    
   I don't remember the guy's name, but i would recognize it again if someone
   ran it by me. 
    
   Scott
","2011-04-23 22:02:55",1,"2012-03-03 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/373798_re-athens-and-welch-killing-.html","Trippsb@aol.com","","burton@stratfor.com",""
373807,"Re: Research Question
","   Bruget and Koop were arrested in early 1980s, not 1990s.                   
                                                                              
   All open source info states he disappeared on November 12, 1995.  Either   
   kidnapped and killed by an intelligence agency or Palestinians.  Simply    
   put, a mystery.  How important is this to you?  I could use a chit and     
   contact a former RAF analyst at the BfV who is now retired and ask         
   him.  Personally, I think Bruget was killed by either Syrian, or Iraqi     
   intelligence services because of his knowledge of Carlos' work for these   
   states.  You must know that Carlos published his bio in 2004 and in 2009   
   sent President Obama a letter asking for help in finding Bruget - all open 
   source.  Proof on who kidnapped / killed Bruget will be hard to come by -  
   but a lot speculations.  As you know, there are many mysteries in this     
   field that will never be solved.                                           
                                                                              
   --- On Mon, 4/25/11, Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com> wrote:              
                                                                              
     From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>                                  
     Subject: Re: Research Question                                           
     To: \"Dennis Pluchinsky\" <dpluchinsky@rocketmail.com>                     
     Date: Monday, April 25, 2011, 9:10 AM                                    
                                                                              
     What happened to him?  Was he rendered?                                  
                                                                              
     On 4/25/2011 11:09 AM, Dennis Pluchinsky wrote:                          
                                                                              
       Yes, he was arrested in Paris in the 1990s along with Carlos's         
       girlfriend Magadelan Koop.  Carlos carried out several attacks on      
       French targets and even sent a threat letter to the French Minister of 
       interior.  French held fast.  Both were eventually released.  Koop in  
       Venezuela and Bruguet disappeared ....                                 
                                                                              
       --- On Mon, 4/25/11, Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com> wrote:          
                                                                              
         From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>                              
         Subject: Research Question                                           
         To: dpluchinsky@rocketmail.com                                       
         Date: Monday, April 25, 2011, 9:00 AM                                
                                                                              
         Hello Dennis,                                                        
                                                                              
         Do you recall a terrorist by the name of Bruno Breguet, who          
         disappeared                                                          
         in 1995 on a ferry from Italy to Greece?                             
                                                                              
         He was linked to Carlos.                                             
                                                                              
         Thanks much, Fred                                                    
","2011-04-25 18:32:14",1,"2012-03-05 16:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/373807_re-research-question-.html","dpluchinsky@rocketmail.com","","burton@stratfor.com",""
373860,"Re: Bruno
","   i think so
   On 16.06.2011, at 17:20, Fred Burton wrote:

     Is the General still alive? 

     On 6/16/2011 10:02 AM, Nadav Schirman wrote:

       why did they want to protect him?
       don't forget the french had a vendetta. the DST used their best
       hunter,  General Rondot, to hunt him. Catching him was a political
       joker for interior minister of the time as Carlos has seeded terror
       across france when M was in prison. 
       if you can talk to Rondot that will be a big thing as well.
       On 16.06.2011, at 16:18, Fred Burton wrote:

         More --

         On Carlos: There are few reasons why the Israeli*s never targeted
         Carlos the Jackal. One of the reasons is that he was never a threat
         to the Israeli national security or the *head* of any anti-Israelis
         mission that he was accounted for. Many operations were blamed on
         him because people didn't now who had committed them. Carlos was
         addicted to alcohol and was drunk most of the day, hanging out and
         not hiding from anyone. Mossad considered him a non-threat and
         dismissed him as not worthy of their attention even though they knew
         where he was living.

         His locations were under surveillance and known at all times by the
         French, Germans, Americans, Israelis and other Easter European
         countries. Most of his *career* he was an *insider* for vary intel
         agencies. As you well know he became an official spy for the Eastern
         Germany regime in 1979. Since he was just a gangster, had no
         religion, and fighting for the Palestinian cause was a good cover
         for him, he sold the information he collected on Arab countries also
         to Western intel agencies for good money.

         The reason the French and the Americans decided to arrest him in 94
         is to protect him. A coalition of Arab intel agencies led by the
         Iraqis were on their way to assassin him on his way from Syria to
         Czechoslovakia where he planned to go to retrieve funds. The plan
         was to attack him in Budapest were he owned few safe homes.

          

         On 6/16/2011 9:03 AM, Nadav Schirman wrote:

           i'd love to find him and talk to him, wouldn't you?
           On 16.06.2011, at 16:00, Fred Burton wrote:

             More from the same source:

             With Carlos protected in jail, the Israelis were asked by their
             allies to go after Carlos* right hand, Bruno Breguet. The
             Israelis knew Bruno very well since  1970 when he was arrested
             in Israel by Mossad as a member of the *People*s Front* for
             carrying illegal explosives. He was then convicted to 15 years
             in prison but was released before the term agreeing to
             collaborate with the Israelis. He disappeared in November 95
             when he sailed from Switzerland to Italy.

              

             On 6/16/2011 8:56 AM, Nadav Schirman wrote:

 very interesting. but why would the israelis be interested in him, they were not interested in carlos at all.


 On 16.06.2011, at 15:52, Fred Burton wrote:


 From a Israeli intelligence contact:

 Bruno was picked up by an Israeli navy commando and brought to a
 friendly port in the Medditeranean. There he was picked up by a team
 with two white vans to an unknown destination. The agents were
 americans. There were rummors that he was taken to a CIA secret site and
 he died during the interogation. I personally  believe that he is living
 under a new identity somewhere in South America.
","2011-06-16 17:37:20",1,"2012-03-05 16:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/373860_re-bruno-.html","nadav.schirman@me.com","","burton@stratfor.com",""
373862,"Assange
","just told SkyNews concerns for US extradition

More and more likely

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
","2010-12-17 15:32:59",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/373862_assange-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","tactical@stratfor.com",""
373982,"Re: [CT] Untangling the Bizarre CIA Links to the Ground Zero Mosque
","   The Imam is an operational asset of the FBI.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   Sender: ct-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 07:22:26 -0500
   To: CT AOR<ct@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [CT] Untangling the Bizarre CIA Links to the Ground Zero Mosque
   [very conspiratorial, but interesting]
   Untangling the Bizarre CIA Links to the Ground Zero Mosque
   New York Observer
   By Mark Ames
   September 10, 2010 | 2:36 p.m
   http://www.observer.com/2010/politics/untangling-new-intrigue-behind-ground-zero-mosque

   So far, the debate over the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero has
   unfolded along predictable lines, with the man at the center of the
   project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, drawing attacks from the right painting
   him as a terrorist sympathizer with ties to Hamas and the Muslim
   Brotherhood.

   But meanwhile, links between the group behind the controversial mosque,
   the CIA and U.S. military establishment have gone unacknowledged.

   For instance, one of the earliest backers of the nonprofit group, the
   Cordoba Initiative, that is spearheading the Ground Zero mosque, is a
   52-year-old Scarsdale, New York, native named R. Leslie Deak. In addition
   to serving on the group's board of advisors since its founding in 2004 by
   Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, Deak was its principal funder, donating $98,000 to
   the nonprofit between 2006 and 2008. This figure appears to represent
   organization's total operating budget-though, oddly, the group reported
   receipts of just a third of that total during the same time period.

   Deak describes himself as a \"Practicing Muslim with background in
   Christianity and Judaism, [with] in-depth personal and business
   experiences in the Middle East, living and working six months per year in
   Egypt.\" Born into a Christian home, Deak became an Orthodox Jew and
   married a Jewish woman before converting to Islam when he married his
   current wife, Moshira Soliman, with whom he now lives in Rye.

   Leslie Deak's resume also notes his role as \"business consultant\" for
   Patriot Defense Group, LLC, a private defense contractor with offices in
   Winter Park, Florida, and in Tucson. The only names listed on the firm's
   website are those of its three \"strategic advisers.\" These include retired
   four-star General Bryan \"Doug\" Brown, commander of the U.S. Special
   Operations Command until 2007, where he headed \"all special operations
   forces, both active duty and reserve, leading the Global War On
   Terrorism,\" and James Pavitt, former deputy director for operations at the
   Central Intelligence Agency, where he \"managed the CIA's globally deployed
   personnel and nearly half of its multi-billion dollar budget\" and \"served
   as head of America's Clandestine Service, the CIA's operational response
   to the attacks of September 11, 2001.\"

   Besides Pavitt, Brown and a third advisor, banker Alexander Cappello, the
   Patriot Defense Group is so secretive it doesn't even name its management
   team, instead describing its anonymous CEO as a former Special Forces and
   State Department veteran, the group's managing director as a former CIA
   officer experienced in counter-terrorism in hostile environments and the
   group's corporate intelligence head as a \"23-year veteran of the U.S.
   Secret Service who worked on the personal security details of former
   Presidents Bush and Clinton.\"

    

   Leslie Deak and Moshira Soliman/ PanachePrive

    

   Patriot Defense Group's primary business involves leveraging its
   government connections and know-how. The firm is divided into two
   divisions: one that \"focuses exclusively on the needs of the U.S. military
   and law enforcement communities as well as the requirements of friendly
   foreign governments,\" and a corporate division, which \"provides business
   intelligence and specialized security services to corporate clients and
   high net-worth family enterprises.\"

   So, to recap: From 2006 to 2008, R. Leslie Deak worked as a \"business
   consultant\" to this super-secretive security contractor with ties to the
   CIA and counterterrorism forces, and in those same three years he also
   donated nearly $100,000 in seed money to the foundation now advocating the
   construction of the so-called Ground Zero Mosque.

   Interestingly, during the same three-year period during which the Deak
   Family Foundation was financing the Cordoba Initiative, Deak also donated
   a total of $101,247 to something called the National Defense University
   Foundation. The National Defense University is a network of war and
   strategy colleges and research centers (including the National War
   College) funded by the Pentagon, designed to train specialists in military
   strategy. The organization recently announced a November 5 dinner gala in
   honor of Defense Secretary and former CIA chief Robert Gates. Sponsors
   include Northrup Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and...the Patriot
   Defense Group.

   Deak also sits on the NDUF's board of directors, the chairman of which is
   Mark Treanor, the former general counsel for Wachovia bank from 1998
   through its collapse in 2008 and a major bundler of campaign donations for
   the McCain-Palin ticket in 2008. Wachovia, now owned by Wells Fargo, was
   recently fined $160 million for laundering \"at least $110 million\" in
   Mexican drug money between 2003 and 2008, while Treanor was Wachovia's
   general counsel, though the figure is likely higher since Wachovia
   admitted it didn't put any controls on at least $420 billion-that's
   billion-in cash moved through its network of Mexico currency exchanges.

   Which leads to another odd coincidence: Laundering money for drug lords is
   what brought down Deak & Co., the company run by Leslie Deak's father,
   Nicholas Deak, years ago. The elder Deak, a former top intelligence
   commander during World War II for the OSS (the forerunner of the CIA), was
   the founder of Deak-Perera, which became for a time one of the world's
   biggest foreign currency and gold dealers. But in 1984, a Presidential
   Commission on Organized Crime accused the firm of acting as a money
   laundering operation for Columbia drug cartels, who reportedly brought
   sacks of cash containing tens of millions of dollars into Deak's Manhattan
   offices. By the end of 1984, Deak & Co. had declared bankruptcy, and a
   year later, Nicholas Deak was murdered in the company's headquarters at 29
   Broadway by a deranged homeless woman.

   After the firm went bankrupt and Leslie Deak was left on his own, the
   corporation was broken up and sold off in pieces. One company that traces
   its beginnings to the defunct Deak empire is Goldline International, a
   business concern well known to fans of Glenn Beck as well as California
   investigators. Goldline is to Glenn Beck what General Electric was to
   Ronald Reagan: The company sponsors Beck's TV and radio shows as well as
   his touring act, and Beck is its public face. The Los Angeles County
   District Attorney's office, along with the Santa Monica City Attorney's
   office, are currently investigating Goldline for defrauding customers by
   railroading gullible customers into buying their most debased products.

   Speaking of Glenn Beck, it has been reported that Saudi Prince Al-Waleed
   bin Talal, the second-largest shareholder in News Corp., the parent
   company Fox News, which airs Beck's program, is also a major funder of
   Imam Rauf's projects, as Jon Stewart viewers heard all about last week.

   Coincidences happen, of course. (For instance, Pamela Geller, the blogger
   who's become the leading voice denouncing the mosque project was once,
   bizarrely enough, associate publisher of The New York Observer.)

   But add to this array of unexpected connections the work of Imam Rauf on
   behalf of the U.S. government-which includes serving as an FBI
   \"consultant\" and being recruited as a spokesperson by longtime George W.
   Bush confidante Karen Hughes, who headed up the administration's
   propaganda efforts in the Muslim world-and a compelling picture begins to
   emerge. Bush's favorite Imam, with backing from a funder with connections
   to the CIA, the Pentagon and the currency trading company that now
   sponsors rightwing firebrand Glenn Beck, proposes to build a mosque around
   the corner from the site of the most devastating terrorist attack ever
   visited on America. In the name of \"[cultivating] understanding among all
   religions and cultures,\" he puts forth a project that offends a majority
   of Americans and deals a significant setback to the broader acceptance of
   Muslim-Americans. It's a little like Billy \"White Shoes\" Johnson claiming
   the only reason he moonwalks after scoring a touchdown is to lower
   tensions on the football field and raise the other team's spirits.

   Whether the Cordoba Initiative ever gets its way with the Ground Zero
   Mosque, it may well have a lasting legacy at odds with its stated
   intention: By damaging the very moderates and progressives who actually
   view New York, and the nation as a whole, as a tolerant melting pot, and
   strengthening the position demagogues on both sides, it will almost
   certainly deal a setback to interfaith relations. It will also help to
   hobble the Democratic party. Which just might have been the point all
   along.

   Either that, or it's merely a coincidence that this controversy has
   erupted now, during crucial mid-term elections. In which case we can all
   go back to what we were doing before-either denouncing the Park51 Mosque
   as an affront to Americans, or championing it as a symbol of our
   fundamental rights-playing our accustomed roles in a drama that seems too
   perfect, somehow, to believe.
   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2010-09-13 14:38:35",1,"2012-02-27 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/373982_re-ct-untangling-the-bizarre-cia-links-to-the-ground-zero.html","burton@stratfor.com","","ct@stratfor.com",""
375123,"Fw: [CT] Assange-Manning Link Not Key to WikiLeaks Case
","   Not for Pub --

   We have a sealed indictment on Assange.

   Pls protect

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   Sender: ct-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:16:53 -0600
   To: CT AOR<ct@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [CT] Assange-Manning Link Not Key to WikiLeaks Case
   January 25, 2011 3:37 PM
   Assange-Manning Link Not Key to WikiLeaks Case

   http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20029521-503543.html

   A report that investigators have so far failed to establish a direct link
   between the founder of the document-dumping website WikiLeaks and the Army
   private accused of providing the site with hundreds of thousands of secret
   State Department cables won't derail the military's case as much as it
   might seem.

   The case against Army Pfc. Bradley Manning didn't hinge on investigators
   uncovering a direct link to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange anyway, CBS
   News National Security Correspondent David Martin reports.

   Special Section: WikiLeaks

   On Monday, NBC News reported that military officials said Manning couldn't
   be directly linked to Assange in allegedly handing off the cables and
   other secret documents that led to last summer's publication of the
   Afghanistan and Iraq war logs.

   But no one ever thought there was direct contact between Assange and
   Manning, Martin reports. Assange meeting or e-mailing Manning would be
   like the director of the Central Intelligence Agency meeting or e-mailing
   a CIA agent. The theory of the case is that Assange orchestrated the leak
   through cut outs deliberately designed to immunize himself from charges of
   espionage.

   In his own e-mails, Manning refers to himself as a source for Assange even
   though he did not give the documents to Assange but allegedly to a third
   person while home on Christmas leave, Martin reports.

   Attorney General Eric Holder has said the Justice Department was
   considering filing espionage charges in the case.

   Meanwhile, Manning continues to be held in a military brig while the Army
   considers prosecuting him. He has been charged with illegally obtaining
   more than 150,000 secret cables and giving more than 50 of them and a
   classified video to an unauthorized person.

   Manning's lawyer told The Associated Press Friday that a mental-health
   investigation to determine if Manning can stand trial will likely begin in
   February.
   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2011-01-26 15:23:28",1,"2012-02-28 13:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/375123_fw-ct-assange-manning-link-not-key-to-wikileaks-case-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","secure@stratfor.com",""
375919,"On Carlos the Jackal & Wadi Haddad
","   Hello Fred,

    

   The information I have is based on a mix of public and classified
   information that I was exposed to during my service in Israel and Europe
   and, since I*m not sure what information is still classified, please do
   not mention my name as a source if you decide to use the information
   bellow.

   As you know, the Eastern European communist block of countries, in
   addition to Arab countries, were safe havens for both Carlos and Wadi.
   Ceausescu and his regime in Romania together with ex-Yugoslavia, East
   Germany and Hungary were all protecting the Palestinian organizations and
   Carlos.

   Part of the information I have was also obtained from General Pacepa, who
   was Ceausescu*s chief of foreign intelligence service and also from German
   archives.

    

   On Wadi Haddad: contrary to Aharon Klein and other publications on *behalf
   of* Mossad officers, the killing of Haddad by Mossad with poisoned
   chocolate is just a nice fiction story. Haddad was indeed on the Mossad
   assassination list and a *Red Page* order was given on his name along with
   other names such as Kamal Adwan, Hussein Abad Al-Chir, Mohammed Boudia,
   Abu Daud and others.

    

   However, he died from Leukemia that he suffered for a long time. The
   version of Mossad*s assassination played good for all the parties,
   presenting Wadi as a hero and Mossad as an assassins organization that the
   terrorists should be afraid of. Wadi*s death also cleared the way for
   Carlos to approach the Middle Eastern leaders and offer his services to
   them.

   Please keep in mind that Wadi was an Orthodox Christian and not a Muslim
   Palestinian. It is really hard to claim that he fought for the Palestinian
   cause. He was recruited by the Russians while still being in Amman, Jordan
   where he ran a clinic together with George Habash. Wadi used the
   Palestinian cause to form a Marxist-Leninist terrorist arm that never
   served the Palestinian cause. He was *removed* from the Mossad*s
   assassination list per the Russians request. The Russians paid the
   Israelis a high price for this request.

   On Carlos: There are few reasons why the Israeli*s never targeted Carlos
   the Jackal. One of the reasons is that he was never a threat to the
   Israeli national security or the *head* of any anti-Israelis mission that
   he was accounted for. Many operations were blamed on him because people
   didn't now who had committed them. Carlos was addicted to alcohol and was
   drunk most of the day, hanging out and not hiding from anyone. Mossad
   considered him a non-threat and dismissed him as not worthy of their
   attention even though they knew where he was living.

   His locations were under surveillance and known at all times by the
   French, Germans, Americans, Israelis and other Easter European countries.
   Most of his *career* he was an *insider* for vary intel agencies. As you
   well know he became an official spy for the Eastern Germany regime in
   1979. Since he was just a gangster, had no religion, and fighting for the
   Palestinian cause was a good cover for him, he sold the information he
   collected on Arab countries also to Western intel agencies for good money.

   The reason the French and the Americans decided to arrest him in 94 is to
   protect him. A coalition of Arab intel agencies led by the Iraqis were on
   their way to assassin him on his way from Syria to Czechoslovakia where he
   planned to go to retrieve funds. The plan was to attack him in Budapest
   were he owned few safe homes.

    

   With Carlos protected in jail, the Israelis were asked by their allies to
   go after Carlos* right hand, Bruno Breguet. The Israelis knew Bruno very
   well since  1970 when he was arrested in Israel by Mossad as a member of
   the *People*s Front* for carrying illegal explosives. He was then
   convicted to 15 years in prison but was released before the term agreeing
   to collaborate with the Israelis. He disappeared in November 95 when he
   sailed from Switzerland to Italy.

    

   Please feel free to contact me for any other additional information you
   consider valuable.

    

   I*ll send you shortly information on encryption software.

    

   Best regards,

   David

   On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com> wrote:

     Hello David,

     Sorry for the delay in response, I'm to the point where I can no longer
     keep up w/the volume of email and phone calls I receive. 

     My research question centers on Wadi Haddad, formerly of the PFLP.  I've
     seen reports in various books that he was poisoned by means of
     chocolates by the MOSSAD.    Is that true?   Secondly, why didn't the
     MOSSAD target Carlos the Jackal for elimination? 

     Thank you,
     Fred
      

     On 6/10/2011 10:46 AM, David Dafinoiu wrote:

       Fred, I trust all is well.

        

       I finally took a brake to follow up with you on few topics that we
       discussed during our meeting.

        

       We agreed that you will send me information on the research that you
       would like me to help you with for your new book.

        

       Also, I attached here the contact information for the decision maker
       on partnerships with vendors at the Joint Task Force North: LTC
       Centurion at Ingrid.Centurion@jtfn.northcom.mil, (915) 313-7727.

        

       I spoke with Greg Yavner, the CEO and President of Texas-Israel
       Chamber of Commerce, about you and we would like to offer you to join
       our Homeland Security and Defense committee where my partner Dan
       Cofall is the chairman. The chamber is a great business hub and could
       be a great source of business for Stratfor too.

        

       I*ll also send you more info on our company in the next days. Jay and
       Laurie said hello.

        

       Have a great weekend.

       David

       --
       Cordially,
        
       David Dafinoiu
       President

       NorAm Intelligence
       Mobile: 646-678-2905
       david@dafinoiu.com
       dd@noramintel.com
       http://noramintel.com
        
       
       The information contained in this facsimile or electronic message is
       confidential information intended for the use of the individual or
       entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended
       recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
       message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
       dissemination, or copying of this communication is strictly
       prohibited. If this message contains non-public personal information
       about any consumer or customer of the sender or intended recipient,
       you are further prohibited under penalty of law from using or
       disclosing the information to any third party by provisions of the
       federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. If you have received this facsimile or
       electronic message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone
       or email and return or destroy the original message to assure that it
       is not read, copied, or distributed by others.

   --
   Cordially,
    
   David Dafinoiu
   President
   NorAm Intelligence
   Mobile: 646-678-2905
   david@dafinoiu.com
   dd@noramintel.com
   http://noramintel.com
    
   
   The information contained in this facsimile or electronic message is
   confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity
   named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
   or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
   intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, or
   copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If this message
   contains non-public personal information about any consumer or customer of
   the sender or intended recipient, you are further prohibited under penalty
   of law from using or disclosing the information to any third party by
   provisions of the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. If you have received
   this facsimile or electronic message in error, please immediately notify
   us by telephone or email and return or destroy the original message to
   assure that it is not read, copied, or distributed by others.
","2011-06-15 20:42:22",1,"2012-03-05 16:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/375919_on-carlos-the-jackal-and-wadi-haddad-.html","david@dafinoiu.com","","burton@stratfor.com",""
375925,"Re: On Bruno
","   Hello Fred,

    

   I called few former colleagues that I worked with in Germany and Eastern
   Europe and also pulled out some private information I have on Bruno. I
   also confirmed few details with public source information.

    

   Bruno*s (code name *Luca*) last known trip started on November 11, 1995,
   with his girlfriend and their daughter Shona, 2 years old, when they
   boarded a ferry in the Greek port of Igoumenitsa on their way to Ancona,
   Italy, which was an approx 15 hours trip.  Arrived at Ancona, where the
   Italian customs were informed about Bruno*s presence on the ferry, and
   being on the Italian intelligence red list as *persona non grata*, he was
   separated from his girlfriend and his daughter, and sent back with the
   ferry to Igoumenitsa.

    

   The Italians were warned of Bruno*s presence on the ferry by the Greek
   police. The Greek secret service waited for him back in Igoumenitsa to
   pick him up. Apparently the Greeks were acting on behalf of French
   authorities now. He was living part of the year in Perdika, a small Greek
   village not far from Igoumenitsa, with the knowledge and the protection of
   the country*s secret service since 1994. After Carlos was arrested, Bruno
   was spending the time between Greece, Italy and Austria. Bruno*s problems
   started when the Greeks and the French found out that he was a double
   agent.

    

   While the Greeks were waiting to pick him up at the port, an Israeli Navy
   commando team accompanied by a war ship and a helicopter, that had a
   mission close to Cyprus, were sent after Bruno to extract him before the
   he gets in the port. He was picked up 17 minutes before the ferry arrived
   in the port of Igoumenitsa.

  After the mysterious disappearing there were rumors that it was a special
  operation supported by NATO naval forces, which is not true. There were few
  individuals in European ports at that time presenting themselves as NATO
  officers, but they were Mossad and US Navy Intel. Mossad officers with
  European citizenship posed as 'NATO officials' in many other previous missions
  around the world, including the Middle East.

   Another version was that Bruno was abducted by the Greek secret service in
   an operation of thugs linked to the case of Carlos and sponsored by Paris.

    

   Another version was that Bruno was hiding in the ferry out of fear* a
   non-sense version since the Greek secret service searched the ferry in the
   port. The rumors about his dead body being in Greece were based on the
   fact that he never contacted his family after the disappearing.

   Back in 1994, four Swiss terrorists were arrested and detained for several
   weeks by the Department General of Switzerland because they were suspected
   of belonging to what Stasi used to call \"Separat\", the code name for the
   Carlos Group. Their names were passed to the Hungarian secret services by
   Bruno during one of his trips to Austria. The Hungarians passed the names
   to the Swiss.

   The US intelligence community had good relationship with the Hungarians in
   1995, where the Americans had few secret bases. After the delivery of
   Bruno by the Israelis to the Americans (I*m not sure about the agency, but
   it could be the Navy intelligence) in a friendly port, Bruno was taken to
   Hungary. I just learned that Bruno left Budapest, Hungary under a new
   identity at the end of 1997 to South America. The most likely destination
   was Cuba.

   An evidence that he was still alive in 1996 was the fact that his initial
   patron, the Swiss Nazi Francois Genoud, was looking for him too. Francois
   had the information on Bruno*s possible locations from one or more
   ex-Stasi officers with connections in the Hungarian secret service. Genoud
   also had ties to UBL that was looking after Bruno in Arab countries. Much
   of bin Laden group's international activities took place in the Geneva
   offices of Saudi Investment Company, managed by board members that
   included Baudoin Dunant, who represented Francois Genoud when he was on
   trial for participation in international terrorism.

   The CIA and the Israelis tried to take Genoud out in October 1993 when he
   escaped a Mossad assassination attempt at his home in Switzerland. Since
   then he became aware that the Israelis were closing in on him.

   I arrived in Budapest in May 1996, but never heard about Bruno after the
   mission in the Mediterranean. In the next few days I left Budapest to
   Switzerland via Austria and Germany. I*m not sure if Genoud knew about
   Bruno*s location, even if he was well connected in the CIA. I*m not even
   sure that the CIA knew Bruno*s location. I just learned that in June 1997
   he was still in the Hungarian secret service custody.  

    

   However, Genoud died few days later on May 30, 1996 when he just returned
   from a restaurant to his home town on Lake Lausanne. This time he was
   poisoned for real and died immediately. The media reported that his
   friends and relatives accompanied him back to his house, where one of his
   lunch companions prepared him a lethal cocktail per Genoud requests. At
   least this time the Mossad was not accused for the assassination :)

   If it is true that Bruno left to Cuba in 1997 and is still alive, then he
   should be 62 years old today. His daughter, Shona, should be 18 years old.

   I*ll continue investigating the case and keep you informed.

   Best regards,

   David

   On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com> wrote:

     Yes in deed.  Most interested.  I don't think we grabbed him because
     that was on my watch. 
     On 6/15/2011 2:39 PM, David Dafinoiu wrote:

       On the contrary to what many people believe, Mossad is not
       assasinating people that easy. Even the most recent incident in Dubai
       was an accident, they tried to bring the victim to Israel and exchange
       him with the Israeli soldier in Iranian's custody.

       Bruno was picked up by an Israeli navy commando and brought to a
       friendly port in the Medditeranean. There he was picked up by a team
       with two white vans to an unknown destination. The agents were
       americans. There were rummors that he was taken to a CIA secret site
       and he died during the interogation. I personally  believe that he is
       living under a new identity somewhere in South America. I left the
       Navy in 96 and have not heard about him since then. I can try to find
       out more on him if you are interested.

       Best regards, David

       Sent from my NorAm portable Galaxy(c)

       David Dafinoiu
       President

       NorAm Intelligence

       Mobile: 646-678-2905
       david@dafinoiu.com
       dd@noramintel.com
       http://noramintel.com

       On Jun 15, 2011 1:48 PM, \"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com> wrote:

   --
   Cordially,
    
   David Dafinoiu
   President
   NorAm Intelligence
   Mobile: 646-678-2905
   david@dafinoiu.com
   dd@noramintel.com
   http://noramintel.com
    
   
   The information contained in this facsimile or electronic message is
   confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity
   named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
   or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
   intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, or
   copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If this message
   contains non-public personal information about any consumer or customer of
   the sender or intended recipient, you are further prohibited under penalty
   of law from using or disclosing the information to any third party by
   provisions of the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. If you have received
   this facsimile or electronic message in error, please immediately notify
   us by telephone or email and return or destroy the original message to
   assure that it is not read, copied, or distributed by others.
","2011-06-17 20:06:49",1,"2012-03-05 16:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/375925_re-on-bruno-.html","david@dafinoiu.com","","burton@stratfor.com",""
375951,"Re: Question
","Hi Fred,
I don't believe we're interested! We might be interested in advertising 
in the program.

David Cohen
ThunderCloud Subs
www.thundercloud.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/ThunderCloud-Subs/38315210779
512-479-8805


On 7/18/11 9:04 AM, Fred Burton wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> We are putting together our final list of sponsors and wanted to
> double-check w/TCloud to see if there would be interest?   The team and
> booster club would also reciprocate w/team meals.
>
> Thanks!  Fred
>
> On 5/31/2011 8:38 AM, T Cloud wrote:
>> What size is the sign? How much is it?
>>
>> David Cohen
>> ThunderCloud Subs
>> www.thundercloud.com
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/ThunderCloud-Subs/38315210779
>> 512-479-8805
>>
>>
>> On 5/28/11 4:45 PM, Fred Burton wrote:
>>> Would Thundercloud have any interest in sponsoring a scoreboard sign
>>> for the Westwood High School (NW Austin) Girls Softball field?  Tough
>>> to raise sponsors for the girls when football rules in Texas and the
>>> high school students and families frequent the Thunderclouds near the
>>> school.  The sign would also be visible from the neighborhood streets
>>> and the field is used my many club teams.  Thank you, Fred Burton
>>>
>>>
","2011-07-20 16:31:24",1,"2012-03-05 16:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/375951_re-question-.html","T_Cloud@austin.rr.com","","burton@stratfor.com",""
378182,"Re: MX1 concerned about Wikileaks
","   State has pulled the plug on OGA access to their cables.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"scott stewart\" <scott.stewart@stratfor.com>
   Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 13:02:33 -0500
   To: 'Marko Papic'<marko.papic@stratfor.com>; 'Fred
   Burton'<burton@stratfor.com>
   Cc: 'Alex Posey'<alex.posey@stratfor.com>; 'Ben
   West'<ben.west@stratfor.com>
   Subject: RE: MX1 concerned about Wikileaks

   This makes a lot of sense. The Wikileaks case will do the same thing (at
   least for a while) for a lot of countries as far as their contact with the
   Americans go.

    

   From: Marko Papic [mailto:marko.papic@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 9:33 PM
   To: Fred Burton
   Cc: Alex Posey; scott stewart; Ben West
   Subject: Re: MX1 concerned about Wikileaks

    

   I doubt they would scrub his name. The only repercussion for MX1 would be
   that he said something embarrassing and Wiki is all about publishing
   embarrassing statements. He is concerned that if the Juarez briefs are
   published, they might have him saying something negative about GOM, that
   is really his only concern.

   The interesting thing he highlighted is that it is going to be more
   difficult to be frank with Americans now. There is concern that more such
   leaks could happen. From Mexicans' standpoint they are not really afraid
   of giving secrets to Americans. They are scared that they are frank, blast
   corruption/incompetence in MXC, and then get fired when those cables are
   leaked.

   MX1 says that this is a bad thing because it is already difficult to get
   Mexicans to be frank about how much GOM sucks. First you have the
   nationalism issue, then the fact that many just don't like Americans, and
   now the ones that want to be frank are afraid they'll lose their job when
   GOM finds out they said Calderon has his head up his ass and that the
   Consul General is taking money from the Zetas.

   He has not seen any that U.S. diplomats from Juarez consulate wrote and he
   wouldn't have written any himself of course.

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   Cc: \"Alex Posey\" <alex.posey@stratfor.com>, \"scott stewart\"
   <scott.stewart@stratfor.com>, \"Ben West\" <ben.west@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Saturday, December 4, 2010 8:00:37 AM
   Subject: Re: MX1 concerned about Wikileaks

   He should be concerned.

   On a positive note, I've seen a few names scrubbed out by the Wiki edit
   process, but have no idea who is doing this or their guidance.

   Has he seen any that he has written?

   Marko Papic wrote:
   > I only now managed to talk to MX1 about Wikileaks. He had a lot of
   > interesting insight about the language used by U.S. diplomats and the
   > effect that the leaks are having on his own work and that of his
   > colleagues. One thing he stressed is how unreliable the memos are.
   > From his own experience -- having written hundreds -- the memos
   > exaggerate the importance of information and sources for a reason, the
   > diplomats are trying to justify their own existence and position. He
   > did think some of the U.S. titles were quite ludicrous -- such as the
   > one on cat in Turkmenistan.
   >
   > On a more serious note, MX1 indicated that he is very concerned about
   > the Mexican batch of leaked memos. He said that thus far only 6 have
   > been released, however, in total there are over a thousand.
   > Apparently, there are 19 from Juarez. He knows the American
   > counterparts in the Juarez Consulate very well. In his words, they
   > ended up under a table of quite a few establishments drunk out of
   > their mind together. He worries that the memos these diplomats wrote
   > might cite him. In fact, he thinks that no other Mexican diplomat from
   > El Paso consulate made the effort as much as he did to reach out to
   > the Americans across the Rio in Juarez.
   >
   > He is not worried about any actual intel being leaked. He says he
   > didn't leak any Mexican national secrets. The problem is that one of
   > the American diplomats may have cited a conversation they had and said
   > something like \"subject looked nervous\" or \"subject is highly doubtful
   > of GOM ability to do X\" and get him into trouble. He has a policy of
   > being as frank as possible with American law enforcement and diplomats
   > and it could very well come out that he was blasting GOM in one of the
   > memos. Knowing how Mexicans are when it comes to national criticism
   > (not very good) he may get fucked.
   >
   > I told him not to sweat it. We always need interns. ;)
   >
   >
   > --
   >
   > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
   >
   > Marko Papic
   >
   > Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
   >
   > STRATFOR
   >
   > 700 Lavaca Street - 900
   >
   > Austin, Texas
   >
   > 78701 USA
   >
   > P: + 1-512-744-4094
   >
   > marko.papic@stratfor.com
   >

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-05 19:44:48",1,"2012-03-03 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/378182_re-mx1-concerned-about-wikileaks-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","scott.stewart@stratfor.com,marko.papic@stratfor.com,ben.west@stratfor.com,alex.posey@stratfor.com",""
379356,"Re: WikiLeaks plans 'major' announcement within hours as Pentagon bracesfor massive Iraq war leak
","   DOD and DHS are the problem.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: James Casey <jimcasey58@aol.com>
   Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:39:34 -0400
   To: <burton@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: WikiLeaks plans 'major' announcement within hours as Pentagon
   braces for massive Iraq war leak
   This is why...........even though the FBI is always the first to be
   criticized for not playing nice-nice in the sandbox.............the
   concept of \"widely sharing of information\" is not always a great idea. 
   For a number of years I have used the very example of \"a slick sleeved
   private, siting in a tent in Baghdad, looking at thousands of classified
   reports on SIPRNET\", as a bad way to business.  Even I didn't think that
   was going to be the exact scenario that has played out with this WikiLeaks
   fiasco.  Maybe everybody at the DNI and DHS who have been pimping the
   \"share by rule, withhold by exception,\" concept for the last nine years
   will change their tune a little, and acknowledge that \"need to know\" is
   still a valuable idea. 

   -----Original Message-----
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   To: 'James Casey' <jimcasey58@aol.com>
   Sent: Fri, Oct 22, 2010 1:16 pm
   Subject: FW: WikiLeaks plans 'major' announcement within hours as Pentagon
   braces for massive Iraq war leak

    

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 12:15 PM
   To: 'Tactical'
   Subject: WikiLeaks plans 'major' announcement within hours as Pentagon
   braces for massive Iraq war leak
   By PAULINE JELINEK and RAPHAEL G. SATTER Associated Press Writers
   LONDON - The WikiLeaks website is poised to release what the Pentagon
   fears is the largest cache of secret U.S. documents in history - hundreds
   of thousands of intelligence reports that could amount to a classified
   history of the war in Iraq.
   U.S. officials said Friday they were racing to contain the damage from the
   imminent release, while NATO's top official told reporters he feared that
   lives could be put at risk by the mammoth disclosure.
   NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said any release would create \"a very
   unfortunate situation.\"
   \"I can't comment on the details of the exact impact on security, but in
   general I can tell you that such leaks ... may have a very negative
   security impact for people involved,\" he told reporters Friday in Berlin
   following a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
   In a posting to Twitter, the secret-spilling website said there would be a
   \"major WikiLeaks announcement in Europe\" at 0900 GMT (5 a.m.
   EDT) Saturday. The group has revealed almost nothing publicly about the
   nature of the announcement.
   Meanwhile, a team of more than a hundred analysts from across the U.S.
   military, led by the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been combing through
   the Iraq documents they think will be released in anticipation of the
   leak.
   Called the Information Review Task Force, its analysts have pored over the
   documents and used word searches to try to pull out names and other issues
   that would be particularly sensitive, officials have said.
   The task force has informed U.S. Central Command of some of the names of
   Iraqis and allies and other information they believe might be released
   that could present a danger, officials have said, noting that - unlike the
   WikiLeaks previous disclosure of some 77,000 documents from Afghanistan -
   in this case they had advance notice that names may be exposed.
   Once officials see what is publicly released, the command \"can quickly
   push the information down\" to forces in Iraq, Marine Corps Col.
   Dave Lapan, a Defense Department spokesman, said Friday in Washington.
   \"Centcom can jump into action and take whatever mitigating steps\"
   might be needed, Lapan said.
   While the latest WikiLeaks revelations may not change public perceptions
   of the Iraq war - it has been extremely unpopular in Europe and divides
   opinion in the United States - they could provide new insight about a
   conflict that seemed headed for success after the invasion in 2003 before
   descending into a yearslong, blood-soaked struggle.
   The documents could shed light on the root causes of the insurgency, for
   instance, or the growth of sectarian violence that blighted Baghdad and
   other Iraqi cities. It may also give a behind-the-scenes glimpse at some
   of the major episodes of the war - like the manhunt for insurgent chief
   Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, or the killing of U.S. security contractors on March
   31, 2004, by a mob in Fallujah, an incident which ultimately led to the
   U.S. assault on the Iraqi city.
   Wikileaks' previous release in July of secret war documents from Iraq and
   Afghanistan outraged the Pentagon, which accused the group of being
   irresponsible. Fogh Rasmussen said Friday that leaks of this nature \"may
   put soldiers as well as civilians at risk.\"
   It appears that those fears - which the military has invoked in its appeal
   to WikiLeaks and the media not to publish the documents - have yet to
   materialize. A Pentagon letter obtained by The Associated Press reported
   that no U.S. intelligence sources or practices were compromised by the
   Afghan war logs' disclosure.
   Still, the military feels any classified documents release can harm
   national security and raise fears for people who might consider
   cooperating with the U.S. in the future, Lapan said.
   Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2007-08, said the disclosures
   would be more worrisome if the U.S. were still fully engaged in combat in
   Iraq - but he still sees it as a major problem.
   \"I'd really be worried if - as looks to be the case - you have Iraqi
   political figures named in a context or a connection that can make them
   politically and physically vulnerable to their adversaries,\" he told a
   conference Friday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in
   Washington.
   \"That has an utterly chilling effect on the willingness of political
   figures to talk to us - not just in Iraq but anywhere in the world,\" he
   said.
   ___
   Jelinek reported from Washington. National Security Writer Robert Burns in
   Washington and Associated Press Writer Melissa Eddy in Berlin contributed
   to this report.


   No virus found in this incoming message.
   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
   Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3212 - Release Date: 10/22/10
   01:34:00
","2010-10-22 21:15:37",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/379356_re-wikileaks-plans-major-announcement-within-hours-as.html","burton@stratfor.com","","jimcasey58@aol.com",""
380848,"Re: Reuters media query --wikileaks
","   The release of the material in the first place, but this is what nations
   do. Rule number one in this business: There are no friendly intelligence
   services.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: <Peter.Apps@thomsonreuters.com>
   Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 20:02:31 +0000
   To: <burton@stratfor.com>; <kyle.rhodes@stratfor.com>
   Subject: RE: Reuters media query --wikileaks

   Any thoughts on what the most serious part of the information released so
   far is? The encouraging diplomats to spy, the Saudi/Iran material or
   simply the release of the data in the first place?

    

   From: burton@stratfor.com [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
   Sent: 28 November 2010 19:38
   To: Apps, Peter M. (M Edit Ops); Kyle Rhodes
   Subject: Re: Reuters media query --wikileaks

    

   Serious

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: <Peter.Apps@thomsonreuters.com>

   Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 19:31:52 +0000

   To: <burton@stratfor.com>; <kyle.rhodes@stratfor.com>

   Subject: RE: Reuters media query --wikileaks

    

   Serious damage control or manageable damage control?

    

   From: burton@stratfor.com [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
   Sent: 28 November 2010 19:23
   To: Apps, Peter M. (M Edit Ops); Kyle Rhodes
   Subject: Re: Reuters media query --wikileaks

    

   Peter,

   It becomes damage control for Foggy Bottom to manage and presents foreign
   intelligence liaison issues.

   Fred

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: <Peter.Apps@thomsonreuters.com>

   Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 18:41:33 +0000

   To: <kyle.rhodes@stratfor.com>; <burton@stratfor.com>

   Subject: Reuters media query --wikileaks

    

   Hi Fred,

    

   Wondering if you have any quick thoughts on wiki leaks -- at least, what
   we've seen so far. Anything earthshattering? Or is the real impact going
   to be the way in which diplomats are more circumspect in the indications
   from now on? Strikes me that one of the lessons of this is how much easier
   the information age has made it to steal gigantic quantities of
   information in one go...

    

   Any thoughts greatly received,

    

   Peter

    

   Peter Apps

   Political Risk Correspondent

   Reuters News

    

   Thomson Reuters

    

   Direct line: +44 20 7542 0262

   Mobile: +44 7990 560586

   E-mail: peter.apps@thomsonreuters.com

    

   This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and
   information company.
   Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
   except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
   Thomson Reuters.

   This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and
   information company.
   Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
   except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
   Thomson Reuters.

   This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and
   information company.
   Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
   except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of
   Thomson Reuters.
","2010-11-28 21:12:33",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/380848_re-reuters-media-query-wikileaks-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","kyle.rhodes@stratfor.com,Peter.Apps@thomsonreuters.com",""
382246,"Fw: [CT] [OS] GREECE/US/CT - Greek police match launcher used inUSembassy hit
","     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:23:21 +0000
   To: CT AOR<ct@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [CT] [OS] GREECE/US/CT - Greek police match launcher used in
   USembassy hit
   The chances the Greeks did this on their own are slim. We probably matched
   the forensics and letting them claim credit.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Michael Wilson <michael.wilson@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 08:20:12 -0500
   To: <ct@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [CT] [OS] GREECE/US/CT - Greek police match launcher used in
   US embassy hit

   Zack Dunnam wrote:

     Greek police match launcher used in US embassy hit
     Friday, June 18, 2010; 8:31 AM

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061802223.html

     ATHENS, Greece -- Greek police say a rocket-propelled grenade launcher
     found in a suspected radical hideout was used against the U.S. embassy
     in Athens three years ago.

     A far-left group called Revolutionary Struggle claimed the audacious
     Jan. 2007 attack on Greece's most heavily guarded foreign embassy, which
     caused no injuries and minor damage.

     Police arrested six suspected group members in April, and seized what is
     believed to have been Revolutionary Struggle's main arsenal in an Athens
     flat. The haul included the launcher, RPGs, firearms and explosives.

     A police statement Friday said laboratory tests have confirmed the
     launcher was used against the embassy.

     The six suspects, all self-declared anarchists, have been charged with
     terrorism and attempted murder.
","2010-06-18 15:25:15",1,"2012-03-03 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/382246_fw-ct-os-greece-us-ct-greek-police-match-launcher-used.html","burton@stratfor.com","","PosillicoM2@state.gov",""
383068,"Re: names20
","   I'm gonna turn down future WM work, aint worth the angst

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:51:41 -0500 (CDT)
   To: <burton@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: names20
   FYI. Beth told me that GF isn't a fan of doing business with Scott but
   that we wouldn't turn work down just because of that. If we are going to
   do it, and anything really, then we are only going to do it for a good
   price.

   I don't think Scott would have liked that response so I went with the one
   below :)

   Ill flash the work. Anya will start on this next week.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: \"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Korena Zucha\" <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 5:49:20 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
   Subject: Re: names20

   Woho, u did pull that answer out of your rear!

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:34:18 -0500 (CDT)
   To: <burton@stratfor.com>
   Cc: korena zucha<korena.zucha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: names20
   Tell him we pulled both numbers out of our rears! Can say something along
   the lines of this-

   The old pricing was based on an hourly rate, which we no longer use. Our
   pricing model for such reports has increased in particular as these
   projects require dedicated time by our briefers and analysts, which is
   time spent away from our usual daily projects.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: \"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com>
   To: \"korena zucha\" <korena.zucha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 3:56:48 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
   Subject: Fw: names20

   ?
   -----Original Message-----
   From: \"Scott McHugh\" <Scott.Mchugh@wal-mart.com>
   Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:47:31
   To: Fred Burton<burton@stratfor.com>
   Subject: RE: names20

   Fred,
   Use this email as authorization to proceed with the project for both
   candidates with the delivery deadlines noted in the tasking email.

   Just out of curiosity:  why has the price for this service increased so
   much?  The assessment Stratfor conducted for Stephan Fanderal in 2008
   was only $5K and I was curious as to what drove the spike in price?

   Regards
   Scott

   ***All of the terms and conditions enumerated in the Non Disclosure
   Agreement previously signed between Stratfor and WMT remain in effect
   for this project.***    

    

   -----Original Message-----
   From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 2:08 PM
   To: Scott McHugh
   Subject: Re: names20

   Scott - From our business folks, let me know, Thanks Fred

   We are capable of completing the reports. Since we no longer use hourly
   rates, the cost of the reports would be $8,000 each. 50 percent of the
   payment for each report would be due upon your written agreement of
   these terms (and the start of our work) while the remaining half would
   be due upon delivery within the deadlines you have given. While we will
   provide you with a formal proposal next Monday for your signature,
   written confirmation of these terms will suffice in the meantime in
   order to get the reports to you by when needed. Please let me know if
   these terms are agreeable as soon as possible.

   Scott McHugh wrote:
   > Fred,
   >
   > Candidate #1 (Need report in @ 2 weeks):  
   >
   > Purpose of the research: We are seeking a check on the candidate from
   a
   > character, integrity, ethics and honesty perspective and also want to
   > gain any available insight into the candidates personality and
   > leadership style to assess whether or not the candidate will be able
   to
   > fit into the Walmart culture.  
   >  
   > Name: PER BANK:
   >
   > Unknown DPOB but based upon the resume it may be Denmark @ 1968
   >
   > Residence: Markskellet 20
   >                      Hilleroed 3400
   >                      Denmark
   > Telephone:  +45 4386 4386
   >
   > Education: University of Odense, Denmark and University of Bournemouth
   > in Bournemouth, UK:  Degree in Manufacturing Engineering (1992)      
   >
   > Currently (since 3/09) Employed by TESCO PLC, Hertfordshiire, UK
   > Previous Employer (2001-2009): COOP DANMARK, Albertslund, Denmark
   > Previous (2001-2001) MASTERFOODS, Copenhagen, Denmark
   > 1998-2000: INWEAR GROUP
   > 1992-1998: DANFOSS
   > 1986-1988: Danish Army- First Lieutenant
   >
   >
   > CANDIDATE # 3 (Need report in @ 3 weeks)
   > Purpose of the research: We are seeking a check on the candidate from
   a
   > character, integrity, ethics and honesty perspective and also want to
   > gain any available insight into the candidates personality and
   > leadership style to assess whether or not the candidate will be able
   to
   > fit into the Walmart culture.
   >
   > Name:        CONROY, Avril M. MCIM        
   > DPOB:        March 30th, 1968, Ireland
   > Status:         Married with 2 children
   > Telephone:        +7916 1754556
   >
   > EDUCATION
   > 1980 - 1986        Our Lady's Bower, Athlone Co. Westmeath, IRELAND
   > *        Intermediate Certificate - 1984
   > *        Leaving Certificate - 1986 (HONORS)
   > *        Kellogg Sales and Marketing 2005
   > *        Insead World Class Leadership 2006
   > *        Full Member of Chartered Institute of Marketing 2009
   >
   > Sept 2008- present Performance Unit Leader Central Russia
   > TNK-Management.
   >
   > Feb 2008- Sept 2008 Director of Brand and Marketing TNK-BP Management.
   >
   > April 2005-Feb 2008 General Director BP Retail Moscow
   >
   > April 2001- 2005 BP Retail Moscow, Operations Manager
   >         
   > June 1998 - Jan 2001  BP Retail Moscow, Shops Network Manager
   >         
   > February 1997 - May 1998  Nesco LTD.  Moscow
   > Nesco was a leading food distributor in Russia and part of the MKS
   group
   > in Cyprus.          
   >         
   > July 1994 - August 1997    Irlasto  plc        Moscow
   >         Irlasto plc is an Irish retailing specialist involved in a
   > number of diversified operations in Moscow.
   >
   > August 1992 - July 1994        Heatons Ltd.        Ireland
   >         Heatons Ltd. is a major Irish retailing chain with twenty shops
   > nationwide, whose principal areas of business are fashion and
   homecare.
   > *        Store Manager with particular responsibility for establishing
   > new outlets.
   >
   > March 1984 - August 1992        Dunnes Stores Ltd.        Ireland
   >
   > -----Original Message-----
   > From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
   > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 8:09 AM
   > To: Scott McHugh
   > Subject: names
   >
   > Hello Scott,
   >
   > Can I get the names of the two folks we discussed yesterday?
   >
   > Thanks, Fred
   > -----------------------------------------
   > **********************************************************************
   > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
   > intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are
   > addressed. If you have received this email in error destroy it
   > immediately.
   > **********************************************************************
   > Walmart Confidential
   > **********************************************************************
   >  
","2010-04-17 00:53:18",1,"2012-02-27 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/383068_re-names20-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","zucha@stratfor.com",""
383267,"Re: Athens and Welch killing
","   In a message dated 4/17/2011 1:32:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
   burton@stratfor.com writes:

     Scott,

     I've heard from a pretty good Agency source that Welch was set up by an
     Embassy FSN. 

     Have you ever heard that?

     Thanks much, Fred

     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

   Fred,
    
   No, and I worked with the task force chasing them.  It was a sub group
   under Mike Freeman...
    
   Scott
","2011-04-23 03:22:51",1,"2012-03-03 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/383267_re-athens-and-welch-killing-.html","Trippsb@aol.com","","burton@stratfor.com",""
383383,"R: Bruno Breguet
","Good question. I did some research on it but its still a mystery. let me to=
 reopen my file. best

________________________________________
Da: Fred Burton [burton@stratfor.com]
Inviato: luned=EC 30 maggio 2011 17.40
A: Olimpio Guido
Oggetto: Bruno Breguet

Guido --

Bruno Breguet, a Swiss pro-Palestinian revolutionary, disappeared in
1995 on a ferry from Italy bound for Greece.   He was close to Carlos
the Jackal and Magdalena Kopp.

Who grabbed or killed him?

Thanks, Fred=
","2011-05-30 18:06:51",1,"2012-03-05 16:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/383383_r-bruno-breguet-.html","GOlimpio@rcs.it","","burton@stratfor.com",""
384492,"Re: [DSonlineforum] Alledged Leak of 260,000 Classified and Sensitive State Department Cables
","   Geez...
   What was his motive?

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Posillico, Michael\" <PosillicoM2@state.gov>
   Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 20:38:23 -0400
   To: <burton@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [DSonlineforum] Alledged Leak of 260,000 Classified and
   Sensitive State Department Cables
   If they were only State documenrs it would not be so bad.

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   To: Posillico, Michael
   Sent: Tue Jun 08 19:35:10 2010
   Subject: Fw: [DSonlineforum] Alledged Leak of 260,000 Classified and
   Sensitive State Department Cables

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Brent Barker <barkerbso@yahoo.com>
   Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 16:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
   To: DSonlineforum@yahoogroups.com<DSonlineforum@yahoogroups.com>
   Subject: [DSonlineforum] Alledged Leak of 260,000 Classified and Sensitive
   State Department Cables
    

    
   Mike,
    

   The Pentagon has launched an intensive investigation of a 22-year-old Army
   intelligence analyst named Bradley Manning, who claims to have been the
   source of the video leak earlier this year of the 2007 U.S. helicopter
   attack that killed two Reuters employees in Iraq.

    Manning claims to have downloaded 260,000 diplomatic cables from U.S.
   government computer networks containing classified and embarrassing
   material such as American diplomats' very candid assessments of foreign
   leaders, mainly in the Middle East.

   The LA Times
    
   http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/06/oil-spill-cable-spill-secrets.html 
    
   Also in The Daily Beast, entitled \"The State Department's Worst
   Nightmare.\"
    
   http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-08/state-department-anxious-about-diplomatic-secrets-bradley-manning-allegedly-downloaded/

   __._,_.___
   Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
   Messages in this topic (1)
   Recent Activity:
   Visit Your Group
   MARKETPLACE

   Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on -
   Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore
   new interests.

   Yahoo! Groups
   Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest  o  Unsubscribe  o  Terms of Use
   .
   __,_._,___
","2010-06-09 02:40:38",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/384492_re-dsonlineforum-alledged-leak-of-260-000-classified-and.html","burton@stratfor.com","","PosillicoM2@state.gov",""
385135,"STAFF - ICJB coordinators/board
","   Shana Ortman and Claire Rosenfeld are the US coordinators for ICJB.

   http://www.studentsforbhopal.org/node/57
   Advisory Board
   The Students for Bhopal Advisory Board is the national leadership body for
   SfB, representing the North American grassroots supporters of the
   International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal. Composed of approximately 7
   volunteer members as well as the US staff member of ICJB, the Advisory
   Board coordinates the actions, projects, and initiatives undertaken by
   ICJB/SfB in North America.

   Who is on the Advisory Board?
   Shana Blustein Ortman
   U.S. Coordinator, International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal; SfB
   Advisory Board Member
   Shana has worked on social and environmental justice for the past 10
   years, and she is extremely moved and inspired by the struggle for Justice
   in Bhopal.  Before becoming the U.S. Coordinator for ICJB in April 2008,
   she spent nearly four years at ForestEthics, where she was the Lead
   Organizer on the Paper Campaign.  Her work focused on leadership
   development and creating grassroots organizing for a campaign that is
   transforming the catalog industry and protecting Endangered Forests. Most
   notably, in 2006, they won the Victoria's Dirty Secret campaign, a three
   year campaign that included over 750 grassroots actions across North
   America.  Shana got her B.A. in Humanities, with a focus on Children's
   Literature and Social Change from New College of California in 2005.  She
   also spent two years studying Anthropology at Grinnell College, where she
   was very involved with student activism for environmental justice and
   human rights.   

   Claire Rosenfeld
   U.S. Coordinator, International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal; SfB
   Advisory Board Member

   Claire got involved with ICJB when she spent a week in July/2008 at the
   Sambhavna Trust Clinic in Bhopal.  She interned over summer with Shana at
   ICJB in San Francisco and organized the hugely successful curry cook-off
   fundraiser. Claire earned her B.A. in Cultural Studies and Foreign
   Languages (Spanish, Hindi) at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA.
   As part of the advisory board, she hopes to collaborate with groups
   committed to resolving the ongoing tragedy and provide her own insight
   about the direction of the campaign in North America. She brings her
   strong belief that corporate profit should never come at the price of
   human lives.

   Tony Millard
   SfB Advisory Board Member
   Tony graduated from the Northwestern University Medill School of
   Journalism in 2006, and he is currently working as a producer, writer and
   editor for an XM satellite medical radio station called ReachMD. In his
   first year on the AB, he helped to coordinate our extensive media campaign
   throughout the entire 2008 Padyatra, which included frequent press
   releases and outreach to news and information outlets across a variety of
   mediums throughout the United States.

   Having volunteered at the Sambhavna Clinic in Bhopal for most of a year
   spanning parts of 2006 and 2007, he hasa firm, first-hand perspective of
   the situation on the ground in Bhopal. From Sambhavna to the dilapidated
   factory, to Oriya Basti and Hamidia Hospital, to the oft-protested home of
   the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh in Shamla Hills, his knowledge of
   Bhopal is a benefit to our strategizing and planning actions here in the
   United States. This applies particularly from the standpoint of
   communicating to others the extent of the devastation across Bhopal, but
   more importantly, the spirit of the Bhopalis who continue to fight for
   Justice.

   Diana Katgara
   SfB Advisory Board Member
   Diana had the chance to spend some time in Bhopal and get to know a number
   of people there. These people who are strong, brillliant, loving,
   creative, inspirational, funny, musical, articulate, insightful, caring,
   full of hope and who will never ever give up fighting for justice for
   themselves and fighting to ensure that what has happened to Bhopalis
   doesn't happen to others have become an important part of her life.
   &#8232;&#8232;The grave injustices that have happened and continue to
   happen in Bhopal are unacceptable. From December 3rd, 1984 onwards
   Bhopalies have witnessed the horrors of losing their loved ones and
   continue to be lied to and cheated out of effective health care, clean
   water, safety against deadly poisons, the ability to earn, the right not
   to have to feed babies contaminated breast milk, just to name a few
   things. And yet, they continue to have hope and love and show care to
   eachother and those of us who ask if we can stand alongside them. They
   continue to have hope and trust that the world will not let this injustice
   continue.&#8232;&#8232;Over the last year and a half she hasseen the
   creative and meaningful ways that the SfB has supported the Bhopal
   Campaign in the US and she thinks it would be great to bring some of that
   over to Canada.

   Yogesh Simmhan
   SfB Advisory Board Member
   Yogesh brings his passion for justice to the Advisory Board--he hopes to
   improve the lives of Bhopalis, and fight corporate greed and government
   apathy. Co-founder of AID at the Indiana University, Bloomington, Yogesh
   organized all Bhopal-related events at his university from 2003-2007
   including vigils, protests, panel discussions with Ryan Bodyani and Rajan
   Sharma, and a Bhopal photo exhibit. Additionally, he has worked with
   Amnesty International in picketing a talk by Dow CEO Andrew Liveris in
   Indianapolis.   In 2006 he helped host the Students for Bhopal conference
   in Bloomington. Yogesh has experience in letter writing, media management,
   and event organizing. He sees the approaching 25th anniversary of the gas
   tragedy as an important opportunity: \"The looming 25th  anniversary is a
   crucial juncture for our campaign and SfB needs all the support possible
   to mobilize across the US. This is the time for everyone associated with
   the campaign to stand up and be counted, and I'm answering this call.\"

   Ellen Shifrin
   SFB Advisory Board Member
   A former professor and administer, Ellen has strong communication and
   organizational skills.   Her involvement with the campaign for justice in
   Bhopal began in 2008, but she was involved with Amnesty International for
   many years.   She has been invited to table at the UN Association of
   Canada, Toronto event on Water and the AI Business&Human Rights
   conference, The Case for Water as a Human Right.   Having traveled to the
   subcontinent eight times, Ellen is looking forward to combining her
   deep-rooted passions for human rights and India.
   Why do you believe in justice for Bhopal?
   \"Bhopal serves not only as a situation in itself, but also as a model for
   people in other places fighting the same type of violations. There are so
   many levels on which to work for justice in Bhopal - human and
   environmental rights, politics, economics, and the human spirit. So
   because Bhopal will always be with us in one way or another, because the
   fight of the gas and water-affected people is wholly non-violent, because
   the spirit of the survivors is so strong--all these are reasons why I want
   to be part of the Advisory Board, why I want to be more involved, and why
   I feel it's such an important cause to be whole-heartedly committed to.\"

    

    

    

   Leonid Chindelevitch
   SFB Advisory Board Member

   After being involved with the Bhopal campaign for 3 years at the local
   level and gained experience in activities ranging from making banners and
   folding my body in the shape of various letters to preparing budget
   requests and coordinating the chapter's activities, Leonid has taken the
   next step of joining the campaign's Advisory Board. He expects to make
   significant contribution to SfB by organizing fundraising events,
   recruiting new members to the campaign and contacting the media. In
   addition, he hopes to bring new insights into campaign strategies on the
   25th anniversary of the Bhopal disaster.

    

   Interested in joining the Advisory Board?
   In the fall there are Advisory Board nominations for positions that last
   for one year.  Occasionally there are openings during other parts of the
   year.  Email shana@panna.org to learn more.

    

    

   Past Members of the Advisory Board
   Pragya Bhagat (2007-09)

   Association for India's Development, Austin

   Aqueue Freechild (2004-2009)

   US Strategy Coordinator, ICJB

   Daniel Yeow (2007-08)

   Amnesty International, Columbia University

   Raghav Kaushik (2006-2007)

   Ryan Bodyani (2004-2007)

   Student Coordinator, ICJB
","2010-12-23 19:49:45",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/385135_staff-icjb-coordinators-board-.html","morson@stratfor.com","","mongoven@stratfor.com,morson@stratfor.com,defeo@stratfor.com,pubpolblog.post@blogger.com",""
385196,"Fw: Army intel analyst arrested in Wikileaks video Probe
","272","2010-06-07 18:35:02",1,"2012-03-01 23:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/385196_fw-army-intel-analyst-arrested-in-wikileaks-video-probe-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","PosillicoM2@state.gov","attach/13/13219_envelope.gif
attach/33/33382_Brad-Manning-Out-of-Uniform.jpg
attach/33/33383_Brad-Manning-in-uniform.jpg
attach/33/33385_adrian_1-300x200.jpg"
385387,"Fw: Wikileaks founder currently in the U.S.
","     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Shane Harris <shanewharris@gmail.com>
   Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:10:45 -0400
   To: Fred Burton<burton@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Wikileaks founder currently in the U.S.

   He's speaking on a panel today in Vegas.*
   http://data.nicar.org/conference/lasvegas10/showcase*

   --
   Shane Harris
   www.shaneharris.com
   202-489-4827 (mobile)
   202-862-3513 (office)
   Twitter: shanewharris
   Read THE WATCHERS: www.shaneharris.com/thewatchers
","2010-06-11 18:11:33",1,"2012-03-01 23:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/385387_fw-wikileaks-founder-currently-in-the-u-s-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","tactical@stratfor.com",""
385469,"=?Windows-1252?B?UmU6IFtDVF1bT1NdIElDRUxBTkQvVVMvTUlMIC0gVmljdG9yeSBmb3IgV2lraUxlYWtzIGluIEljZWxhbmSScyBQYXJsaWFtZW50?=
","   Until an Icelander is beheaded by a jihadi...

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:07:57 -0500
   To: CT AOR<ct@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [CT] [OS] ICELAND/US/MIL - Victory for WikiL eaks in
   Iceland's Parliament
   Note the analysis at the very bottom, this won't keep people like
   Wikileaks protected, but it will help. 

   Daniel Ben-Nun wrote:

                 Victory for WikiLeaks in Iceland's Parliament

     By ROBERT MACKEY

     An Al Jazeera English video report explained the Icelandic Modern Media
     Initiative in March.

     At 4 a.m. on Thursday, at the end of an all-night session, Iceland's
     Parliament, the Althing, voted unanimously in favor of a package of
     legislation aimed at making the country a haven for freedom of
     expression by offering legal protection to whistle-blower Web sites like
     WikiLeaks, which helped to craft the proposal.

     As the Web site Ice News reports, \"One of the inspirations for the
     proposal was the dramatic August 2009 gagging of of Iceland's national
     broadcaster, RUV by Iceland's then largest bank, Kaupthing.\"

     One of the sponsors of the proposal in the Althing, Birgitta Jonsdottir,
     told my colleague Noam Cohen in February that Iceland hoped to become
     \"the inverse of a tax haven,\" by offering journalists and publishers
     some of the most aggressive protections for free speech and
     investigative journalism in the world. \"They are trying to make
     everything opaque,\" she said. \"We are trying to make it transparent.\"

     As Mr. Cohen explained in an article on the package of laws that passed
     on Thursday:

         The proposal, the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, combines in a
     single piece of legislation provisions from around the world:
     whistle-blower laws and rules about Internet providers from the United
     States; source protection laws from Belgium; freedom of information laws
     from Estonia and Scotland, among others; and New York State's law to
     counteract \"libel tourism,\" the practice of suing in courts, like
     Britain's, where journalists have the hardest time prevailing. [...]

         The plan to make Iceland a world leader in journalism protection
     took shape in December with the assistance of two leaders of the
     whistle-blower Web site WikiLeaks.org, Julian Assange and Daniel
     Schmitt, whose publish-nearly-anything ideology has given them personal
     experience with news media laws around the globe.

     On Tuesday, Philip Shenon of The Daily Beast reported that Mr. Assange
     had told supporters that the site would soon release another video of an
     American military strike that killed civilians:

         After several days underground, the founder of the secretive Web
     site WikiLeaks has gone public to disclose that he is preparing to
     release a classified Pentagon video of a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan
     last year that left as many as 140 civilians dead, most of them children
     and teenagers.

         In an e-mail message obtained by The Daily Beast that was sent to
     WikiLeaks supporters in the United States Tuesday, Julian Assange, the
     Web site's Australian-born founder, also defends a 22-year-old Army
     intelligence specialist who is now under arrest in Kuwait on charges
     that he leaked classified Pentagon combat videos, as well as 260,000
     State Department cables, to WikiLeaks.

     It is not yet clear how much help the new legislation will provide to
     foreign journalists trying to shield themselves behind Icelandic law. As
     the Nieman Journalism Lab notes:
         In his analysis of the proposal - \"Fortress Iceland? Probably Not.\"
     - Arthur Bright of the Citizen Media Law Project has noted that in one
     major test case of cross-border online libel law, \"publication\" was
     deemed to occur at the point of download - meaning that serving a
     controversial page from Iceland won't keep you from getting sued in
     other countries. But if nothing else, it would probably prevent your
     servers from being forcibly shut down.
     Monroe Price, who runs a program in comparative media law at the
     University of Oxford, told The Independent in London, \"As an exercise in
     aspirations, it's a bold and important endeavor.\" But, he added, \"if
     it's a significant issue like a national security question, then the
     charging jurisdiction will figure out ways of asserting its power.\"

     --
     Daniel Ben-Nun
     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
     www.stratfor.com

 --
 Sean Noonan
 Tactical Analyst
 Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
 www.stratfor.com
","2010-06-17 20:10:43",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/385469_-windows-1252-b.html","burton@stratfor.com","","ct@stratfor.com",""
386477,"Re: Fwd: Manning & Wiki Founder Arrest/Prosecution?
","   Emre:

   We cannot source the comment specifically to the FBI, but can say a
   reliable Stratfor source reports.....

   Fry means pay severely for his actions in the intel lingo.

   I think Manning could get the death penalty. Depends if the DOD goes after
   him for espionage vice unauthorized disclosure.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Emre Dogru <emre.dogru@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 02:37:05 -0600 (CST)
   To: burton<burton@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Confederation<confed@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Fwd: Manning & Wiki Founder Arrest/Prosecution?
   Hey Fred, one of our confed partners (Sabah daily) would like to use this
   information without any attribution. But he just wonders if your source
   used \"fry\" in the sense that Manning should be executed by electrocution,
   or does it mean something else in intel business lingo?
   Thanks

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>, \"TACTICAL\"
   <tactical@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:16:14 PM
   Subject: Manning & Wiki Founder Arrest/Prosecution?

   >From a very senior man @ the FBI -- (not for attribution to the FBI pls)

   ------------------------------------------------------------------

   There is no way the administration wants to put him on trial.  That
   would be a huge circus.  Manning should fry and hopefully will

   --
   --
   Emre Dogru
   STRATFOR  
   Cell: +90.532.465.7514
   Fixed: +1.512.279.9468  
   emre.dogru@stratfor.com  
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-03 14:50:05",1,"2012-02-29 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/386477_re-fwd-manning-and-wiki-founder-arrest-prosecution-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","emre.dogru@stratfor.com,confed@stratfor.com",""
387524,"Re: Yes men prank today?
","   Ok, just thought I heard something.  Never mind.  

   Sent from my iPhone
   On Feb 19, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Kathleen Morson <morson@stratfor.com> wrote:

     they appear to be in sante fe for a benefit on their  movie this monday.

     there's a sante fe reporter article about them that lists little actions
     that people can take in the sante fe area -- one of them is for the
     independent petroleum association of mountain states and to register for
     a \"washington call in\" event IPAMS is doing.

     Target: The Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States, a
     trade association that represents 400 a**independent oil and natural gas
     producersa** including Shell, BP and Halliburton

     The problem: IPAMS claims to be dedicated to a**building a sustainable
     energy future,a** but it lobbies against alternative energy and devotes
     the bulk of its advocacy to ensuring the continued primacy of fossil
     fuels.

     The prank: Register for the IPAMS a**Washington call up.\" Bring 10
     friends and perform a musical theater piece in the middle of the keynote
     speech. RSVP for the briefing by emailing Becca Ness or calling
     303-623-0987. Be sure to use a good pseudonym!

                                  YES, PLEASE

   THE YES MEN FIX THE WORLDNEW MEXICO

     By: Zane Fischer 02/17/2010

     http://sfreporter.com/stories/yes_please/5365/

     As a 14-year-old fan of both Jimmy Carter and George Orwell, 1984 was a
     tough year for me. 

     I was convinced Ronald Reagan would find a way to ensure an Orwellian
     dystopia and that a dark future was at hand.

     It turns out I was right.

     But the plot proved to be a lot bigger than Ronald Reagan, and Big
     Brother manifested more as a corporate medusa than a monolithic
     government. 

     If Ia**d known what to look for, the signs were sitting right in front
     of the sleepy rural town in which I grew up.

     On Dec. 3, 1984, 32 tons of toxic methyl isocyanate gas leaked out of
     a Union Carbide Corporation plant in Bhopal, India. Death toll numbers
     vary depending on the source, but between 4,000 and 18,000 people were
     dead within two weeks.

     Meanwhile, just a few miles west of my home in Bishop, Calif., and
     upriver from the sweet little stream that trickled past my house, Union
     Carbide was running the largest tungsten mine in the United States. In
     my town, Union Carbide was a source of good jobs and local benevolence.
     Union Carbide guys were heroes.

     I can remember my mother explaining to me that big companies werena**t
     always as responsible as they should be and would sometimes cut corners
     and take advantage of the poverty in other countries, but that the
     neighbor who worked at the mine wasna**t necessarily a bad person. 

     As the years wore on, people continued to die by the thousands in
     Bhopal. Union Carbide claimed it was not responsible and it abandoned
     the Bhopal plant, leaving behind another 390 tons of toxic chemicals
     that continue to leak into the groundwater to this day. The disaster
     there is now frequently cited as the worst industrial disaster in
     history.

     Twenty years after the Bhopal leak, on Dec. 3, 2004, a spokesman for Dow
     Chemical Company, which had purchased Union Carbide in 1999, announced
     on BBC World News that the company would pay reparations to the people
     of Bhopal and foot the bill for a comprehensive cleanup.

     In a little more than 20 minutes, the value of Dow stock dropped by $2
     billion. The spokesman was a hero.

     But he didna**t work for Dow. He was Andy Bichlbaum. He was a Yes Man.

     <SFIinfo.jpg>The Yes Men, an activist organization that uses parody and
     satire to bring attention to government and corporate misdeeds, came to
     prominence when they participated in the faux World Trade Organization
     website, gatt.org, which was launched in tandem with the protest-riddled
     1999 WTO meeting in Seattle, Wash. 

     Bichlbaum and fellow Yes Man Mike Bonanno have spent the 10 years since
     engaged in increasingly elaborate and far-reaching activist stunts.

     In 2000, the group spoofed President George W Busha**s election website,
     prompting Bush to say, famously, a**there ought to be limits to
     freedom.a**

     Among its many pranks striking at the core of social and economic
     issues, the Yes Men, in corporate or spokesman guise, have proposed that
     McDonalda**s include 20 percent post consumer waste in its hamburgers,
     announced that the US Department of Housing and Urban Development would
     do right by impoverished citizens left homeless by Hurricane Katrina and
     suggested that Africa could be better managed through the use of
     slavery.

     More recently, the Yes Men held a press conference in which they
     announced the US Chamber of Commercea**s newfound support for
     alternative energy and pretended to be representatives of the Canadian
     government at the climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.

     As a result of Yes Men actions and film projects, thousands of articles
     have been written about otherwise-ignored issues. They have become the
     de facto publicity and propaganda arm of social-justice activism and,
     this week, theya**re on the loose in Santa Fe. SFR spoke to Bichlbaum
     about life as a Yes Man, and asked the group to provide some
     hypothetical a**actionsa** for some usual New Mexico suspects.

      

     WHO ARE THOSE UNMASKED MEN?

     SFR: An article in Mother Jones recently argued that Yes Men high jinks
     have degenerated to the level of mere entertainment, that it has become
     difficult to parse your attacks on corporations like Dow Chemical and
     Halliburton from the social or celebrity antics of Borat or Ashton
     Kutcher.
     AB: Really? I havena**t seen that. But, you know, wea**re just trying to
     get an important message out through the means that are available to us,
     the avenues that we are good at. We are doing what we can to publicize
     and drum up enthusiasm and engagement surrounding issues that we and a
     great many other people consider to be important. Certainly we use
     humor. And certainly entertainment can be about making people laugh, but
     also about something greater. Borat, for example, makes some points
     beyond simple jokes; therea**s a kind of a thesis in there. But the Yes
     Men are activists who are using comedy and Ia**m not sure therea**s a
     direct comparison to comedians who may have some activist element or
     some amount of social agenda that appears in their routines. 

     Is humor an effective way of cutting to the heart of our most pressing
     social, economic and political issues?
     Laughter is a simple tool that gets publicity and that results in
     articles being written and in the development of a broad audience. If
     what youa**re doing isna**t funnya**and I suppose you could correlate
     that to entertainment valuea**then your audience is likely to be a lot
     smaller. But ita**s possible that ridiculing those who are in fact
     ridiculous or whose ideas and actions are somewhat ridiculous can
     translate to some popular and progressive power. Some believe that humor
     is a potent political weapon; humor may have kneecapped Sarah Palina**s
     run for vice president or it may have toppled the Soviet Union. I
     dona**t know if I believe that exactly, but humor certainly is a
     powerful component of human belief and experience.

     If the Yes Men differ so significantly from comedians, what about
     self-declared activists with a different agenda, like James Oa**Keefe
     and Robert Flanagan and others involved in the controversial ACORN
     videos and the attempt to infiltrate US Sen. Mary Landrieua**s office?
     Oh, those guys are rank amateurs. I mean, going in and messing with a
     senatora**s phone lines and not even bothering to make fake ID? Ita**s
     just unbelievably stupid. Ita**s also not at all like what we do. They
     seem to be about hurting people who are in a position of weakness or
     hurting people who are trying to help people who are in a position of
     weakness. Wea**re more interested in stopping and exposing people who
     are hurting others. I mean, I dona**t actually understand the motivation
     for those guys: How can you put so much energy into hurting people? I
     know theya**re using the, uh, a**fair and balanceda** argument, but that
     doesna**t play with what amounts to a fraudulent sting-style operation
     perpetrated under false pretenses. Again, what we do is something a
     little different.

     But waita*|when you posed as a US Chamber of Commerce representative,
     you didna**t have any business cards when questioned. Why not?
     Good point. I guess my only defense is that we were engaging in
     political theater. We werena**t up to something definitively illegal. We
     were not trying to do something that we knew could land us in jail.
     Therea**s performance and therea**s amoral, illegal behavior, and I
     think the difference is perceptible.

     Do you think that Yes Men actions have been effective?
     Well, it gets media attention for sure. And, as I said, I think if that
     attention relates to a larger, cohesive campaign then, yes, it can be
     very effective.

     <fast_-l.jpg>Whata**s an example of relating to a broader strategy?
     Our sort of multifaceted attacks on Dow Chemical related to the Bhopal
     disaster were highly coordinated with groups that are dedicated to
     helping the victims in Bhopal or raising awareness about the incident.
     At the Copenhagen climate conference we worked with the Climate Debt
     Agents. We sort of drum up attention for causes that many other people
     and groups are already working on. Everything we do comes down to
     pointing out when economic policies place the rights of capital before
     the needs of people and the environment. Thata**s the key problem that
     wea**re always driving at and we can usually frame our actions within
     the context of other organizations that are dedicated to some aspect of
     that fight.

     Is corporatocracy the primary problem facing the US today?
     I think I can agree with that. Yes, yes it is.

     Is there an official Yes Men response to the US Supreme Courta**s recent
     assertion that the rights of corporations extend to unlimited campaign
     contributions?
     Just the obvious: Ita**s horrifying. Ita**s exactly the wrong direction
     to go in and, as a nation, wea**d better not let it stick. Ita**s so
     totally bad. The only way to ever see progressive legislation would be
     to end corporate lobbyinga**perioda**and this ruling, of course, goes in
     exactly the opposite direction.

     In some opposition to the usual position of the more conservative
     justices, that ruling appears to attack statesa** rights, as a great
     many states have laws governing corporate contributions. Do you think
     states will become the front line on this battle?
     I guess Ia**m not up enough on that as I should be. I dona**t really
     know what role the states will play.

     Your presentation in Santa Fe serves as a benefit for the Santa Fe Art
     Institute. Are the Yes Men artists?
     I dona**t know. I guess it depends on who is asking. Or who is being
     asked. Ora*|I dona**t really think of it that way, I dona**t wonder
     about how to define what we do; I just think of it as doing something.

     Why are so few of us doing something?
     I dona**t know that either. Ita**s a good question. Maybe most of us
     dona**t realize how fun it is to start doing something. Trying to make
     things better may not sound like a good time but, I promise, there can a
     lot of fun in it.

     Are you able to hint at any new targets on the horizon or do you have to
     feign innocence?
     Well, the list of potential targets is, regrettably, almost endless. But
     right now, I feel like wea**ve just finish
","2010-02-19 21:47:10",1,"2012-02-27 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/387524_re-yes-men-prank-today-.html","mongoven@stratfor.com","","morson@stratfor.com,defeo@stratfor.com",""
387545,"STAFF - Ryan Bodanyi works for NWF now
","   http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/Media-Center/Faces-of-NWF/Ryan-Bodanyi.aspx
   Ryan Bodanyi
   National Grassroots Organizer
   Great Lakes Regional Center - Ann Arbor, MI
   Contact
   Ryan Bodanyi is the National Grassroots Organizer for the National
   Wildlife Federation.

   Ryan mobilizes NWF supporters to take action in support of comprehensive
   climate and clean energy legislation.

   A lifelong Michigan resident, Ryan graduated with a degree in
   Environmental Public Policy from the University of Michigan before
   founding Students for Bhopal, which organized support for the survivors of
   the 1984 chemical disaster in Bhopal, India.  Ryan has also worked for
   Greenpeace, Clean Water Action, and the Clean Air Task Force, and
   currently works with NWF to organize support for comprehensive climate
   change legislation.
","2010-12-23 19:45:19",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/387545_staff-ryan-bodanyi-works-for-nwf-now-.html","morson@stratfor.com","","mongoven@stratfor.com,morson@stratfor.com,defeo@stratfor.com,pubpolblog.post@blogger.com",""
387684,"=?Windows-1252?B?UmU6IFtDVF1bT1NdIElDRUxBTkQvVVMvTUlMIC0gVmljdG9yeSBmb3IgV2lraUxlYWtzIGluIEljZWxhbmSScyBQYXJsaWFtZW50?=
","   Who funds WikiLeaks? Could this be a Russian front company? The dude needs
   to be locked up.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:07:57 -0500
   To: CT AOR<ct@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [CT] [OS] ICELAND/US/MIL - Victory for WikiL eaks in
   Iceland's Parliament
   Note the analysis at the very bottom, this won't keep people like
   Wikileaks protected, but it will help. 

   Daniel Ben-Nun wrote:

                 Victory for WikiLeaks in Iceland's Parliament

     By ROBERT MACKEY

     An Al Jazeera English video report explained the Icelandic Modern Media
     Initiative in March.

     At 4 a.m. on Thursday, at the end of an all-night session, Iceland's
     Parliament, the Althing, voted unanimously in favor of a package of
     legislation aimed at making the country a haven for freedom of
     expression by offering legal protection to whistle-blower Web sites like
     WikiLeaks, which helped to craft the proposal.

     As the Web site Ice News reports, \"One of the inspirations for the
     proposal was the dramatic August 2009 gagging of of Iceland's national
     broadcaster, RUV by Iceland's then largest bank, Kaupthing.\"

     One of the sponsors of the proposal in the Althing, Birgitta Jonsdottir,
     told my colleague Noam Cohen in February that Iceland hoped to become
     \"the inverse of a tax haven,\" by offering journalists and publishers
     some of the most aggressive protections for free speech and
     investigative journalism in the world. \"They are trying to make
     everything opaque,\" she said. \"We are trying to make it transparent.\"

     As Mr. Cohen explained in an article on the package of laws that passed
     on Thursday:

         The proposal, the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, combines in a
     single piece of legislation provisions from around the world:
     whistle-blower laws and rules about Internet providers from the United
     States; source protection laws from Belgium; freedom of information laws
     from Estonia and Scotland, among others; and New York State's law to
     counteract \"libel tourism,\" the practice of suing in courts, like
     Britain's, where journalists have the hardest time prevailing. [...]

         The plan to make Iceland a world leader in journalism protection
     took shape in December with the assistance of two leaders of the
     whistle-blower Web site WikiLeaks.org, Julian Assange and Daniel
     Schmitt, whose publish-nearly-anything ideology has given them personal
     experience with news media laws around the globe.

     On Tuesday, Philip Shenon of The Daily Beast reported that Mr. Assange
     had told supporters that the site would soon release another video of an
     American military strike that killed civilians:

         After several days underground, the founder of the secretive Web
     site WikiLeaks has gone public to disclose that he is preparing to
     release a classified Pentagon video of a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan
     last year that left as many as 140 civilians dead, most of them children
     and teenagers.

         In an e-mail message obtained by The Daily Beast that was sent to
     WikiLeaks supporters in the United States Tuesday, Julian Assange, the
     Web site's Australian-born founder, also defends a 22-year-old Army
     intelligence specialist who is now under arrest in Kuwait on charges
     that he leaked classified Pentagon combat videos, as well as 260,000
     State Department cables, to WikiLeaks.

     It is not yet clear how much help the new legislation will provide to
     foreign journalists trying to shield themselves behind Icelandic law. As
     the Nieman Journalism Lab notes:
         In his analysis of the proposal - \"Fortress Iceland? Probably Not.\"
     - Arthur Bright of the Citizen Media Law Project has noted that in one
     major test case of cross-border online libel law, \"publication\" was
     deemed to occur at the point of download - meaning that serving a
     controversial page from Iceland won't keep you from getting sued in
     other countries. But if nothing else, it would probably prevent your
     servers from being forcibly shut down.
     Monroe Price, who runs a program in comparative media law at the
     University of Oxford, told The Independent in London, \"As an exercise in
     aspirations, it's a bold and important endeavor.\" But, he added, \"if
     it's a significant issue like a national security question, then the
     charging jurisdiction will figure out ways of asserting its power.\"

     --
     Daniel Ben-Nun
     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
     www.stratfor.com

 --
 Sean Noonan
 Tactical Analyst
 Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
 www.stratfor.com
","2010-06-17 20:15:31",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/387684_-windows-1252-b.html","burton@stratfor.com","","ct@stratfor.com",""
388134,"Yes Men monitoring 03-25-11
","   Yes Man Mike Bonanno (Igor Vamos) was to give a lecture on 3/24 at Temple
   University in Philadelphia. The event was sponsored by \"Produce
   Exhibitions, The Temple Film Department, and The Tyler Art History
   Department.\" No details of the presentation were offered.

   -       A screening of The Yes Men Fix The World is scheduled as a
   follow-up event on 3/28.

   -       The Yes Men's booking agency Evil Twin Booking is based in
   Philadelphia.

   Regards,

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-03-25 18:10:11",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/388134_yes-men-monitoring-03-25-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","mkolleth@dow.com,sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
388336,"Bhopal update - 12-21-10
","   Scot, Tomm,

   PTI issued a short review of the year's top media stories and titled it
   \"Bhopal gas verdict, compensation issues made headlines in MP.\" The first
   half of the article summarizes the Bhopal court verdicts for the former
   UCIL officials including Keshub Mahindra, the issue of Warren Anderson's
   departure from India, and that the \"compensation issue is yet to be
   settled.\"  The latter cites Abdul Jabbar on the shortcomings of the
   enhanced compensation package. Multiple pickups through India media
   websites.

   http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4724505

   The Hindu's front page of the Delhi and Mumbai editions includes an
   article on the BJP criticizing the Congress party on numerous fronts. The
   story reported comments from BJP leader Nirmala Sitharaman at a press
   conference. Among other topics, he referred to Congress'
   \"[allowing]...William [sic] Anderson...chief of Union Carbide to get
   away.\" Full text available on request.

   The only activist communication at this time is one new tweet from Colin
   Toogood: \"In US? This might be worth looking at\" includes a link to an
   online petition through the Consumer Wellness Center with an appeal to
   \"Stop HR 2751 Food Safety Act.\" There is no indication of any connection
   between the BMA and activism on the FSA. The issue named is that the bill
   could interfere somehow with \"access to locally grown fresh produce.\"

   Please note: AIM will be closing for the Christmas and New Year holidays
   on Wed., Dec. 22 at 3PM Eastern and reopen on Mon., Jan. 3 at 8AM.

   A weekly monitoring report will be issued on Wednesday. Monitoring will
   continue on a limited scale through the holidays with occasional reports
   issued as necessary.

   Please let me know if you require any other arrangements.

   Merry Christmas,

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2010-12-21 17:22:17",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/388336_bhopal-update-12-21-10-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
389024,"Yes Men monitoring 05-06-11
","   Several media items had Yes Men content:

   -       Toronto's York University announced Andy Bichlbaum will be the
   keynote speaker for the Digital Activism and the Environment portion of
   the 2011 Summer Institute in Film to be held May 11 to 17 at the school.
   Bichlbaum will tailor the Yes Men's lecture into \"The Yes Men Fix Canada\"
   on May 11 at Ontario College of Art & Design University Auditorium. A Yes
   Lab will also be held for students attending the institute. Dow is noted
   in the enthusiastically complimentary press release as one of the Yes
   Men's \"legendary\" identity correction targets.

   http://news.yorku.ca/2011/05/03/digital-activism-the-environment-york-university%E2%80%99s-summer-institute-in-film-features-the-yes-men/

   -       A press advisory from the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, the
   Netherlands announced Yes Man Mike Bonanno will appear there on May 27 for
   the Artists in Public lecture series. Bonanno will appear with Nomeda &
   Gediminas Urbonas, a husband-and-wife team of artists from Lithuania. They
   were part of a group that they established the JUTEMPUS exhibition space
   in Vilnius in 1993.

   http://museumpublicity.com/2011/04/30/stedelijk-museum-amsterdam-hosts-april-30-2011-skor-foundation-for-art-and-public-domain-stedelijk-museum-amsterdam-artists-in-public-3-lecture/

   -       The Nation magazine's website has a current blog post on the US
   Uncut activist group that notes the Yes Men were involved with the \"GE tax
   rebate\" prank on April 15.

   http://www.thenation.com/blog/160301/no-future-no-peace

   -       The Chicago Journal, a Chicago Loop media site, reported last
   week's Midwest Generation announcement of a power plant in a South Loop
   neighborhood was a hoax. A Chicago Public Radio reporter was credited with
   \"grilling\" activist Sam Sommers it was revealed Sommers' real name is
   Lindsey Dietzler. Dietzler said \"he was inspired to stage the whole thing
   by workshops taught by political performance artists The Yes Men.\"
   Alderman Bob Fioretti said the action \"seriously undercut\" the work of
   those who are trying to \"clean up Chicago's power plants.\"

   http://www.chicagojournal.com/News/In-The-Paper/05-04-2011/South_Loop_power_plant_debunked_as_a_hoax

   -       The Knoxville (TN) News-Sentinel published a commentary by PR
   professional Mary Beth West, who criticized Andy Bichlbaum's appearance at
   the University of Tennessee in March as damaging to journalistic ethics
   and teaching wrong thinking to students. West also criticized the
   university for allowing the presentation without an appropriate
   counterpoint \"about the consequences of flagrant dishonesty as a modus
   operandi.\"

   http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/may/01/deceptive-practices-troubling/

   The Yes Men themselves have been quiet this week.

   Regards,

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-05-06 21:08:54",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/389024_yes-men-monitoring-05-06-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","mkolleth@dow.com,sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
389297,"Bhopal update- 03-03-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   Things are much quieter today on the Bhopal issue.

   Bhopal Central Chronicle and the Daily Pioneer both posted articles
   sourced from PTI on the ICJB protest against Dow participating in the
   Aquatech trade show. BCC's piece was quite short; the Pioneer posted an
   abbreviated version of the longer PTI wire piece from Wednesday afternoon.

   http://dailypioneer.com/321593/Gas-survivors-lash-out-at-Centre-Maharashtra-Govts.html

   Daily Pioneer also posted for the Bhopal edition of its website media
   today a short version of Tuesday's ICJB press release criticizing the
   BMHRC's practices in drug trials that included gas victims.

   http://dailypioneer.com/321607/Gas-victims-allege-they-were-being-used-as-guinea-pigs.html

   French media site Journal del Environment posted an article on the
   upcoming ICMR report on cancer incidence in Bhopal and possible links to
   MIC gas exposure. This article has a response from Sarangi criticizing the
   findings. He said data was only collected at \"5 of the 64 hospitals and
   clinics that should have been followed.  There is also a problem of data
   presentation, they talk about contaminated areas instead of talking to
   people affected by the gas.  Finally, in this report, no mention is made
   of pollution lanappe table.\"

   http://www.journaldelenvironnement.net/article/bhopal-la-ville-des-cancers,21879

   Also, NYT reporter Eric Lipton wrote an article on Louisiana charity the
   Jindal Foundation, to which Dow contributed $100,000. The paragraph on Dow
   noted neither it nor UCC have been fined for a December 2009 chemical
   spill in St. Charles parish, despite the state proposing a fine for the
   companies. The article as a whole questions whether companies are
   influencing Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal through the charitable
   foundation, which is run under his wife's name.

   http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/us/politics/03jindal.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

   Things are also quiet on the activist end.

   -       Dharmesh Shah emailed the ICJB distribution list with the IBNS
   articles on the Aquatech trade show.

   -       Colin Toogood, who had yesterday tweeted with excitement about
   Aquatech dissociating from Dow, followed it up with one expressing
   disappointment on the show officials refuting the ICJB's press
   announcement.

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-03-03 17:14:57",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/389297_bhopal-update-03-03-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
389346,"Bhopal update - 01-27-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   Colin Toogood posted on Twitter and Facebook calls for readers to \"rate\"
   the Bhopali documentary on the Slamdance Film Festival website. So far,
   there are 41 reviews posted - most are just a single statement and the
   vast majority are complimentary. There is a post from BMA praising
   Carlson's work and promoting the BMA website. The full list of reviews
   will be provided later in the day.

   -       Toogood also posted links to the BMA profile of gardener Ratna;
   the BMA Wordpress blog, which has two new links; and a pickup of the
   Project Censored article that has been reported here previously.

   -       The BMA Wordpress updates are a link to the Times of India article
   on \"imposters\" of gas-affected patients receiving care at the BMHRC, and
   one of archived Bhopal photos on India Today.

   Amnesty USA groups, AID and other non-resident Indian organizations in the
   US continue to post notices of protests and rallies in support of Binayak
   Sen this week through Sunday, Jan. 30.

   In the media,

   -       Indian Express reported the Reserve Bank of India       listed
   Environment & Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh's \"environment-sensitive
   policies\" as a factor in \"an almost 36 percent dip\" in Foreign Direct
   Investment (FDI). The article itself did not mention Bhopal, but it drew
   more than a dozen comments, one of which was apparently from ICJB
   member/environmental reporter Nityanand Jayaraman, who did bring up
   Bhopal. The comments as a whole praised Ramesh's policies and credited the
   FDI reduction to \"rampant government corruption.\"

   http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rbi-blames-jairams-policies-for-fdi-dip/742560/0

   -       Charleston Gazette published an op-ed on Bayer ending MIC
   production, by hazmat consultant Fred Millar. He called for stricter
   government regulations on \"ultrahazardous\" materials and facilities.
   Bhopal was mentioned in reference to the having the \"same ultrahazarodous
   bulk storage process\" as the Institute plant.

   http://wvgazettemail.com/Opinion/OpEdCommentaries/201101260960

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-01-27 18:05:28",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/389346_bhopal-update-01-27-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
389625,"Re: Insight- Sharif Mobley
","   And Stratfor

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"scott stewart\" <scott.stewart@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 08:00:38 -0400
   To: 'Aaron Colvin'<aaron.colvin@stratfor.com>; 'Fred
   Burton'<burton@stratfor.com>
   Subject: RE: Insight- Sharif Mobley

   It is not unusual for nuts to gravitate to places like Yemen and groups
   like AQAP.

    

    

    

   From: Aaron Colvin [mailto:aaron.colvin@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 6:44 AM
   To: scott stewart; Fred Burton
   Subject: Insight- Sharif Mobley

    

   Heard from a very reliable source close to the folks who debriefed Mobely
   that the dude's a] bat shit crazy; and b] he's going to die here. USG is
   convinced that they're going to kill him. Also, he was not part of AQAP.
   Security simply picked him up on suspicions and his shady affiliations.
   Apparently, when they debriefed him he was singing Lionel Richie and
   cracking odd jokes the whole time, either aware or simply unaware that
   they're either going to throw him off a roof [common practice here] or
   they'll put him face down with an AK round to the back of the head.

   Running to another meeting. Call me if you need anything.
","2010-04-09 14:01:38",1,"2012-02-29 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/389625_re-insight-sharif-mobley-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","scott.stewart@stratfor.com,aaron.colvin@stratfor.com",""
389743,"Re: Cavuto
","   Border violence

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"scott stewart\" <scott.stewart@stratfor.com>
   Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 16:31:11 -0400
   To: <burton@stratfor.com>
   Subject: RE: Cavuto

   What did you talk about.

    

   From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 4:27 PM
   To: Kyle Rhodes; Grant Perry
   Cc: Korena Zucha; Anya Alfano; Scott Stewart
   Subject: Fw: Cavuto

    

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: <Tony.Vermillion@emerson.com>

   Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 20:25:39 +0000

   To: <burton@stratfor.com>

   Subject: Cavuto

    

   Fred,

    

   Just saw you on Cavuto - good job.  Very few people get this - the only
   way to turn the tide is education and lots of military presence.

    

   Thanks,

    

   Tony Vermillion

   Emerson Global Security

   (314) 553-2461

   tony.vermillion@emerson.com

    

    
","2010-05-05 22:31:59",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/389743_re-cavuto-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","scott.stewart@stratfor.com",""
389793,"","   A hero?
    Avaaz is right.  It's not illegal but it does make you accessory to being
   an asshole. Real people are being tortured by governments that Avaaz and
   Assange probably like more than the US, all the while the two of them
   denounce US 'torture' at Guantanamo.  
   They are like the crazy IPS/CISPES/SDS people who were so full of hate
   that they could not see that they are doing so much more bad than they at
   doing good.
   I'm in favor of using whatever trumped up charge is available to get this
   guy and his servers off the streets.  And I'd feed that shit head soldier
   to the first pack of wild dogs I could find.
   Or perhaps just do to him whatever the Iranians are doing to our sources
   there.

   On Dec 9, 2010, at 7:22 PM, Kathleen Morson <morson@stratfor.com> wrote:

     Got this today from Avaaz.  This reminds me of a item I saw on the local
     news last night - Berkeley is gearing up for a resolution calling
     Manning a hero.

     --------

     Dear friends,

     The chilling intimidation campaign against WikiLeaks (when they have
     broken no laws) is an attack on freedom of the press and democracy. We
     urgently need a massive public outcry to stop the crackdown -- let's get
     to 1 million voices and take out full page ads in US newspapers this
     week! 

     The massive campaign of intimidation against WikiLeaks is sending a
     chill through free press advocates everywhere.

     Legal experts say WikiLeaks has likely broken no laws. Yet top US
     politicians have called it a terrorist group and commentators have urged
     assassination of its staff. The organization has come under massive
     government and corporate attack, but WikiLeaks is only publishing
     information provided by a whistleblower. And it has partnered with the
     world's leading newspapers (NYT, Guardian, Spiegel etc) to carefully vet
     the information it publishes.

     The massive extra-judicial intimidation of WikiLeaks is an attack on
     democracy. We urgently need a public outcry for freedom of the press and
     expression. Sign the petition to stop the crackdown and forward this
     email to everyone -- let's get to 1 million voices and take out full
     page ads in US newspapers this week!

     http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/?vl

     WikiLeaks isn't acting alone -- it's partnered with the top newspapers
     in the world (New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, etc) to
     carefully review 250,000 US diplomatic cables and remove any information
     that it is irresponsible to publish. Only 800 cables have been published
     so far. Past WikiLeaks publications have exposed government-backed
     torture, the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
     corporate corruption.

     The US government is currently pursuing all legal avenues to stop
     WikiLeaks from publishing more cables, but the laws of democracies
     protect freedom of the press. The US and other governments may not like
     the laws that protect our freedom of expression, but that's exactly why
     it's so important that we have them, and why only a democratic process
     can change them.

     Reasonable people can disagree on whether WikiLeaks and the leading
     newspapers it's partnered with are releasing more information than the
     public should see. Whether the releases undermine diplomatic
     confidentiality and whether that's a good thing. Whether WikiLeaks
     founder Julian Assange has the personal character of a hero or a
     villain. But none of this justifies a vicious campaign of intimidation
     to silence a legal media outlet by governments and corporations. Click
     below to join the call to stop the crackdown:

     http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/?vl

     Ever wonder why the media so rarely gives the full story of what happens
     behind the scenes? This is why - because when they do, governments can
     be vicious in their response. And when that happens, it's up to the
     public to stand up for our democratic rights to a free press and freedom
     of expression. Never has there been a more vital time for us to do so.

     With hope,
     Ricken, Emma, Alex, Alice, Maria Paz and the rest of the Avaaz team.

     SOURCES:

     Law experts say WikiLeaks in the clear (ABC)
     http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3086781.htm

     WikiLeaks are a bunch of terrorists, says leading U.S. congressman (Mail
     Online)
     http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333879/WikiLeaks-terrorists-says-leading-US-congressman-Peter-King.html

     Cyber guerrillas can help US (Financial Times)
     http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d3dd7c40-ff15-11df-956b-00144feab49a.html#axzz17QvQ4Ht5

     Amazon drops WikiLeaks under political pressure (Yahoo)
     http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201/tc_afp/usdiplomacyinternetwikileakscongressamazon

     \"WikiLeaks avenged by hacktivists\" (PC World):
     http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/212701/operation_payback_wikileaks_avenged_by_hacktivists.html

     US Gov shows true control over Internet with WikiLeaks containment
     (Tippett.org)
     http://www.tippett.org/2010/12/us-gov-shows-true-control-over-internet-with-wikileaks-containment/

     US embassy cables culprit should be executed, says Mike Huckabee (The
     Guardian)
     http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee

     WikiLeaks ditched by MasterCard, Visa. Who's next? (The Christian
     Science Monitor)
     http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2010/1207/WikiLeaks-ditched-by-MasterCard-Visa.-Who-s-next

     Assange's Interpol Warrant Is for Having Sex Without a Condom (The
     Slatest)
     http://slatest.slate.com/id/2276690/

     Support the Avaaz community! We're entirely funded by donations and
     receive no money from governments or corporations. Our dedicated team
     ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way -- donate here.
","2010-12-10 03:34:36",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/389793_.html","mongoven@stratfor.com","","morson@stratfor.com,defeo@stratfor.com,pubpolblog.post@blogger.com",""
389807,"Bhopal update - 03-30-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   There is very little to report at this time. New media is negligible -
   only a few mentions of the Bhopal gas accident as a point of reference.

   Colin Toogood posted a few items on the BMA Facebook and Twitter accounts,
   including basic event details for the April 7 screening of the Bhopali
   film at UC Berkeley - 6 p.m. in Boalt Hall, Room 105, Berkeley School of
   Law.

   -       Toogood also posted the CBI extradition approval came from the
   \"Indian Supreme Court,\" when he linked to a 3/23 media item reporting the
   decision came from the CMM.

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-03-30 17:01:29",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/389807_bhopal-update-03-30-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
389850,"Update: Yes Men monitoring - 03-15-11
","   The CM-Life website now has a report posted from Bichlbaum's appearance
   Monday evening.

   CMU Art Gallery Director Anne Gochenour said \"protest art\" is the current
   season's theme for the Dept. of Art's Barstow Lecture series. She said the
   Yes Men \"bring light to the dishonesty they find in marketing and
   business.\"

   The article reported Bichlbaum described the Yes Men's Bhopal/BBC action
   as an example of the hoaxes they conduct, and that he said, \"We want to
   put pressure on companies to do the right thing.\"

   Many of the attendees were art students on class assignments and free
   entertainment, and that some professors used the lecture as a substitute
   for regularly scheduled classes.

   http://www.cm-life.com/2011/03/15/73415/

    

   Regards,

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-03-15 21:05:43",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/389850_update-yes-men-monitoring-03-15-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
389910,"Bhopal update - 03-21-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   The Associated Press reported late this morning Judge Goodwin has granted
   the plaintiffs in Nye v. Bayer CropScience 20 days to modify their
   complaint against the company. According to plaintiffs' attorney William
   DePaulo, this is about possible claims of property damages and medical
   monitoring that were mentioned in last week's media.

   http://www.wvgazette.com/ap/ApTopStories/201103210467

   Other monitoring has been fairly quiet.

   -       Colin Toogood posted a few tweets - runner Jenny Hards raised 120
   pounds for the BMA by running the Lisbon Half Marathon on Sunday; he
   \"liked\" two Yes Men videos on YouTube; and he posted links to Friday's AP
   story about Bayer's decision not to produce MIC, the Hindu piece on the
   Bhopal photo exhibit at Chennai, and Max Carlson's petition to Pres.
   Obama.

   -       A US community of arts media known as EDGE has posted the
   Philadelphia CineFest press release that mentions the Bhopali film will be
   screened there. The press release was on several EDGE city websites
   including New York and Boston.

   -       Hawaii News Now Blog posted an article on \"Exxon, Bhopal, Tepco
   and executive responsibility\" that includes a paragraph on Warren Anderson
   that is fairly sympathetic in tone. The writer mentioned an NYT article in
   which \"Anderson said he had become a recluse because he felt it would
   dishonor those killed to be seen enjoying, say, a meal in a restaurant.\"

   http://blogs.hawaiinewsnow.com/howard/2011/03/exxon-bhopal-tepso-and-executive-responsibility.html?cid=6a01287768a2b5970c0147e35a81d7970b

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-03-21 17:51:59",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/389910_bhopal-update-03-21-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
389922,"Yes Men monitoring 03-04-11
","   The Yes Men have been communicating this week about supporting environment
   activist Tim DeChristopher during his trial in Utah this week on charges
   of false representation during a 2008 Bureau of Land Management land
   auction. The Yes Men posted on their blog and tweeted about
   DeChristopher's trial, and ended the blog post with \"With any luck, we'll
   be back in touch soon with news of some great new opportunities.\"

   -       There has been no follow-up reporting from the Yes Lab event in
   New York City last Saturday. The topic was to have been a company in the
   food industry. Whether or not it is connected, Global Exchange emailed an
   invitation to participate in an action targeting Hershey Chocolate Co.
   about unfair labor practices in cocoa production.

   Yes Men appearances

   -       March 8, Albany, NY - Mike Bonanno to present on Guerilla Media
   101 at the Sanctuary for Independent Media,.

   -       March 10, Knoxville, TN - Bonanno and Bichlbaum are to conduct a
   \"pranking workshop\" at the Univ. of Tenn and do a \"presentation\" The YM
   film will be shown on March 7 as a preview event.

   http://www.knoxville.com/news/2011/feb/27/art-theater-briefs/?partner=RSS

   Media

   3/1 The UK Guardian's Ecologist publication included an interview with the
   YM in NYC. Most of the content is the usual description of the pair and
   their efforts, with the obligatory mention of the BBC/Bhopal hoax as one
   that generated ripples in the media and financial markets. The Yes Men are
   noted as being involved with USunCut, an activist movement targeting the
   financial and tax institutions. (This group was behind recent protests
   targeting the World Bank and Bank of America.)

   http://www.theecologist.org/how_to_make_a_difference/climate_change_and_energy/792772/they_took_on_dow_and_halliburton_but_who_are_the_yes_men.html

   3/4 The Albany (NY) Times-Union included Bonanno's 3/8 engagement in its
   arts event listings.

   http://www.timesunion.com/entertainment/article/Scene-Heard-1040717.php

   The Kansan, Univ. of Kansas daily media, published both a preview and
   event report on the 2/27 screening of the YM film.

   http://www.kansan.com/news/2011/feb/27/truth-seekers-put-political-activism-film/

   Film screenings

   4/27 Lynchburg, VA -Lynchburg College will show the YM film as part of its
   Year of Sustainability Film Series; a \"short\" discussion may follow.

   4/29, Geneva, IL - the United Church of Christ will show the YM film as
   part of its Justice Movie Series

   Regards,

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-03-04 21:41:54",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/389922_yes-men-monitoring-03-04-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","mkolleth@dow.com,sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
389943,"Bhopal update - 03-07-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   Colin Toogood tweeted a link to a CNN-IBN Special Report video on the
   BMHRC drug trials the Bhopal NGOs say used gas victims as \"human guinea
   pigs.\" The tone of the 3-minute piece is accusatory and demanding but does
   not mention Dow or focus on the gas accident itself. The figures
   previously released by the ICJB from RTI documents on the drug trials are
   presented again, with one case story of \"Laxmi\" and her husband, who has
   died. He was found to have been part of a drug trial following a visit to
   the hospital for heart problems.

   http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/144814/bhopal-gas-victims-guinea-pigs-for-drug-trials.html

   -       Toogood also tweeted a link to last week's press release about Dow
   as a sponsor of the Special Olympics World Summer Games.

   Hindustan Times published an opinion piece by Delhi-based political
   commentator Ashok Malik about the \"curious choice\" of Parliament in
   turning down PJ Thomas for India's Central Vigiliance Commissioner (CVC).
   While Justice JS Verma was apparently selected for the post, Justice AH
   Ahmadi was also proposed. Malik pointed out Ahmadi's controversial
   position as chair of BMHRC during the time the above-mentioned drug trials
   took place.

   http://www.hindustantimes.com/A-curious-choice/Article1-670250.aspx

   In activist information:

   -       AID Boston has been deemed the host chapter for the organization's
   North American annual conference on Memorial Day weekend.

   -       Diane Wilson will be the keynote speaker on Saturday, March 12 at
   the Environmental Action 2011 conference at Bentley University in Waltham,
   MA.

   -       The BMA website has only been updated with three more sections
   from Sarangi's book introduction: \"Double standards of safety,\" \"Profit
   before people,\" and \"A disaster waiting to happen.\"

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-03-07 17:18:28",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/389943_bhopal-update-03-07-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
390036,"Bhopal update - 04-13-11 afternoon
","   Scot, Tomm,

   In today's print media, there were six appearances, all somewhat short.
   Three appeared above the fold: The Pioneer published \"Govt seeks harsher
   penalty for accused, files curative plea in SC\" at the top of page 5; The
   Hindu published \"Hearing today on curative petitions in Bhopal gas case\"
   at the top of page 15; and The Times of India Mumbai edition published
   \"Who negotiated paltry Bhopal deal?\" at the top of page 16. Three appeared
   below the fold: The Asian Age published \"Centre, MP failed to consult
   people panels\" at the bottom of page 8; and The Hindustan Times New Delhi
   and Mumbai editions published a two sentence mention of the upcoming
   hearing on the bottom of pages 8 and 9, respectively.

   In activist news:

   The Bhopal Medical Appeal shared a link to its site on the social media
   news site Reddit.com. As of this report, it had a positive rating of 732
   points, showing 64% approval. 
   http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/gndnt/til_that_in_1984_a_union_carbide_plant_in_bhopal/

   Regards,

   Marissa Martin

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-04-13 17:50:13",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/390036_bhopal-update-04-13-11-afternoon-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
390037,"Bhopal update - 01-20-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   LiveMint referred to the Bhopal gas accident in an article about
   preferential treatment of an Indian diplomat accused of assaulting his
   wife. This also appeared on an interior page of the epaper.

   http://www.indiainfoline.com/Markets/News/Immunity-from-justice/5058751852

   UMass - Amherst news announced a new science curriculum designed to
   address \"real world problems,\" one of which is noted to be the \"Bhopal
   disaster.\" I will look into this further.

   http://www.umass.edu/loop/talkingpoints/articles/119266.php

   Colin Toogood posted tweets and on Facebook about the Daily Pioneer report
   of gas NGO BGPSSS protesting a week ago at the Bhopal Memorial Hospital,
   and also offered links to YouTube for an Annie Leonard video. The links do
   not provide her content, so am unable to determine what was Toogood's
   point.

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-01-20 15:22:27",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/390037_bhopal-update-01-20-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
390072,"Yes Men monitoring 04-01-11
","   The Kalamazoo Gazette reported Mike Bonanno (Igor Vamos) spoke on 3/29 at
   Western Michigan University's Miller Auditorium as the keynote for the
   Kalamazoo Peace Center's 30th Annual Peace Week.

   KPC spokesman Ben Ayer said Bonanno would \"talk about journalism in a free
   society, recognizing media spin versus good reporting, truth versus
   perception in political theater, good data collection research and
   analysis techniques.\"

   The Gazette included three paragraphs describing the 1984 Bhopal action
   and referred to \"DOW\" (all caps) Chemical multiple times.

   http://www.mlive.com/news/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2011/03/yes_men_to_speak_at_western_mi.html

   -       The event was listed on the WMU website as part of Monday's news.
   It is not clear whether this is part of the school's print news. This
   announcement includes Ayer's description of Bonanno's 90-minute
   presentation, but does not mention Dow at all.

   Bonanno is to be joined by Tim DeChristopher, the activist who was
   recently convicted on charges of fraud for disrupting a federal oil and
   gas lease auction.

   The Yes Men Fix the World trailer is also offered on the web page.

   http://www.wmich.edu/wmu/news/2011/03/078.shtml

   -       There does not appear to have been any follow up media on the
   event.

   The NY Protest message board posted that \"The Yes Men\" and Tim
   DeChristopher will appear this afternoon from 4 - 6:30 p.m. at the
   Gallatin Theatre in NYC. The event is to be \"an interactive workshop and
   brainstorm.\" The contact for the event is Ashwini Srinivasamohan, NYU
   Sustainability program assistant, Outreach and Engagement.

   The Yes Men tweeted about being part of a new book titled \"The Next
   Eco-Warriors: 22 Young Men and Women Who Are Saving the Planet.\" The book
   by Emily Hunter and Farley Mowat does include a chapter on the Yes Men. It
   is to be released on April 22, in observance of Earth Day. Hunter is the
   daughter of \"Greenpeace co-founders Robert and Bobbi Hunter.\" The book's
   listing on Amazon.com can be seen here:

   http://www.amazon.com/dp/1573244864/ref=tsm_1_fb_lk#_

   Regards,

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-04-01 21:26:58",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/390072_yes-men-monitoring-04-01-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","mkolleth@dow.com,sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
390080,"Bhopal update - 03-16-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   The Central Michigan Life report on Jacques Servin's presentation to CMU
   students on Monday now has a 1-minute video accompanying the print story.

   He talked briefly about the goal of \"bringing under-reported news into the
   spotlight\" and mentioned the Bhopal/BBC action, saying \"they got onto BBC
   posing as a spokesman for the Dow Chemical Corporation.\" Some of the video
   appears to be a direct interview with the reporter, some is of the
   lecture.

   -       Colin Toogood posted the link to the CM-Life story on the BMA's
   Twitter account.

   http://vimeo.com/21077015

   A Nashville \"Scene\" entertainment media event posting announced Bonanno
   and Bichlbaum's engagement at Vanderbilt Univ. tonight.

   http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2011/03/16/pick-of-the-day-the-yes-men-at-vanderbilt

   Media

   IBN-Live reported on the ICMR's cancer assessment in Bhopal, that cancer
   rates increased more than 70% from 1989-2008 \"in areas affected by\" MIC.
   Two doctors quoted said MIC can't be ruled out when considering causes of
   cancer.

   http://ibnlive.in.com/news/bhopal-gas-tragedy-cancer-rates-treble/146063-3.html

   Times of India published an article titled \"Like Bhopal, Fukushima may
   haunt future.\" As with the majority of recent articles on the nuclear
   crisis in Japan, the Bhopal gas tragedy is cited, but that is all.

   -       This article was posted on the BMA website today as new \"news.\"

   http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Like-Bhopal-Fukushima-may-haunt-future/articleshow/7714818.cms

   MoneyLife magazine published the next installment of \"how to\" articles on
   use of the RTI act. The author is again Vinita Deshmuhk, who offered
   instructions on \"writing a letter to the authorities for inspection of
   files under Section 4 of the RTI Act.\" She related the communication steps
   she took \"in the case of Dow\" when requesting to see government files, and
   noted a letter template has since been devised.

   http://www.moneylife.in/article/on-writing-a-letter-to-the-authorities-for-inspection-of-files-under-section-4-of-the-rti-act/14783.html

   The Weekend Leader, an Indian publication, posted a profile of Alok Pratap
   Singh titled \"Bhopal gas victims see some hope as Alok Pratap Singh's
   fight yields fruit.\" The article appears to be from January, as the legal
   system information is on the MP HC's orders to Dow to present the UCC
   merger documentation and to the GoI's Task Force on the steps taken for
   \"removing toxic waste from the infamous plant.\"

   http://www.theweekendleader.com/page.php?cy=Crusade&title=Smelling-success&id=371

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-03-16 16:32:20",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/390080_bhopal-update-03-16-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
391125,"ENB Vol. 25 No. 66 - UNGA Working Group on Marine Biodiversity - Issue #1
","","2011-05-31 03:56:10",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/391125_enb-vol-25-no-66-unga-working-group-on-marine-biodiversity.html","iisd-rs@iisd.org","","enb@lists.iisd.ca","attach/33/33586_image006.gif
attach/33/33588_image008.png
attach/33/33589_image009.gif
attach/33/33590_image014.jpg
attach/33/33591_image013.jpg
attach/33/33592_image003.gif
attach/33/33594_image007.jpg
attach/33/33595_image011.gif
attach/33/33596_image002.jpg
attach/33/33597_image010.gif
attach/33/33598_image001.jpg
attach/33/33599_image005.gif
attach/33/33600_image012.gif
attach/33/33601_image004.gif
attach/33/33793_image013.jpg
attach/33/33796_image014.png"
391208,"Bhopal update - 05-11-11 Media #1
","   Scot, Tomm,

   Global and Indian wire services have reported on the Indian Supreme Court
   decision to dismiss the CBI petition for enhancing the criminal charges
   for the Bhopal gas tragedy against the UCIL officials. It is reported that
   the MP Sessions Court still has the option to reframe the charges.

   The activists and gas NGOs are predictably upset, charging the Indian
   government and CBI with denying justice for the victims and pledging to
   renew their efforts.

   Associated Press, Agence France Presse and Reuters all included mentions
   of Dow's position on the Bhopal issue; initial reports from Indian wire
   services did not mention Dow.

   -       Associated Press briefly reported the situation that resulted in
   the curative petition, then the SC's decision to deny the CBI's request on
   the grounds it \"never gave a sufficient explanation for why it had waited
   14 years to reinstate the stronger charges to gain longer sentences.\"
   Rachna Dhingra was the only activist quoted, lamenting, \"Once again the
   Bhopal gas tragedy victims are being denied justice.\" The curative
   petition for increased compensation from UCC is noted as being on the SC's
   docket.

   This report is trending through US and Canadian morning media with pickups
   seen on US major media websites including WSJ, NYT, Washington Post and
   Forbes.com, although not prominently featured.

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/indian-supreme-court-rejects-plea-for-harsher-penalties-for-bhopal-gas-leak/2011/05/11/AFlLDhmG_story.html

   -       AFP quoted the SC opinion that \"the curative petition is based on
   a plea that is wrong and fallacious.\" Gas NGO leader Balkrishna Namdeo is
   cited along with Dhingra, relating the gas victims' \"shock\" over the
   verdict and resolution to \"express our anger across India.\" Dhingra said
   the victims are now focused on the MP state court, where the \"state
   government and police have also filed petitions...asking for harsher
   sentences.\"

   Canadian and some international pickups of this report appear to be
   trending.

   http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h14ipR_XxVHavzLw3KnU0ULef16g?docId=CNG.a29f570c0237fa3493609b25e0f549ae.751

   -       Reuters issued a report, but there does not appear to be much
   pickup, which has been the case with this source in the past several
   months on Bhopal news.

     The piece includes a quote from the SC opinion that \"The materials
     produced do not meet the requirement (for homicide)\" and one from
     Satinath Sarangi about \"the message the Supreme Court is sending...that
     [companies] can come, you can maim, you can kill and you can get away
     with two years.\"

   http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/11/india-bhopal-court-idUSL3E7GB17420110511

   -       PTI reported Additional Solicitor General Indira Jai Singh's
   explanation on the Sessions Court's option to frame the more harsher
   charges against the UCIL officials. The activists are calling for
   day-to-day hearings in that court. This article included an expanded
   response from Sarangi, who \"alleged that the state organs, including
   judiciary, were not keen on justice to Bhopal gas victims.\"

   Several Indian major media sites posted the PTI article as the first
   report on the SC opinion.

   http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2009088.ece

   -       IANS quoted activist leaders Abdul Jabbar and ND Jayaprakash, who
   echoed the charges of justice denied and the gas victims being \"ignored\"
   and \"denied justice.\" Jayaprakash explained the victims hopes for the MP
   government to \"set up a special court and pursue the case on a priority
   basis, possibly within the next six months the entire retrial must end.\"

   Hindustan Times and other major media sites also posted this article in
   various forms.

   http://www.inewsone.com/2011/05/11/26-years-still-no-justice-say-bhopal-survivors-activists/49656

   -       India Blooms News Service quoted Rashida Bee, who announced a
   \"rally in evening to protest the verdict,\" claimed India \"is a country
   without human rights\" and proclaimed a (somewhat dubious) comparison
   between the recent killing of Osama bin Laden by US forces and that India
   \"could let go a US company that killed so many people in Bhopal.\"

     This piece noted the renewed extradition effort for Warren Anderson.

   http://www.indiablooms.com/EnvironmentDetailsPage/environmentDetails110511d.php

   -       IANS reported the BJP responded to the SC decision as \"a `telling
   comment on the government's attitude'\" toward the Bhopal gas victims and
   that it \"is not at all interested to punish the guilty.\" BJP spokesperson
   Prakash Javadekar referred to Anderson being allowed to leave India in the
   days after the gas accident.

   http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20110511/1747999.html

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-05-11 16:10:17",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/391208_bhopal-update-05-11-11-media-1-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
391344,"Bhopal update - 03-31-11 Media
","   Scot, Tomm,

   The morning television appearance of Max Carlson did not take place as he
   had indicated - the broadcast will be monitored again on Friday.

   In other media,

   -       Carlson was to appear on a Southern California Public Radio
   program called The Madeleine Brand Show.  A working link to hear the
   broadcast has not been located.

   http://www.scpr.org/programs/madeleine-brand/2011/03/31/bhopali/

   -       PR Web announced the launch of the online photojournalism magazine
   Auto de Fe. This is the publication for which Jack Laurenson visited
   Bhopal last year and his report is in the first edition, which is freely
   available online. Laurenson is the journalist who became ill after
   visiting the former UCIL factory site and claimed it was from toxic waste
   exposure. His report is solidly from the activist perspective, saying UCC
   \"openly dumped its highly lethal waste in the surrounding areas for
   countless years,\" using extreme adjectives to describe conditions in
   Bhopal and the parties involved in the issue. He consistently refers to
   Satinath Sarangi as \"Dr. Saringi\" and describes his interview with MP
   Minister for Bhopal Gas Relief and Rehabilitation Babulal Guar
   skeptically. The text is interspersed with Laurenson's photographs.

   http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/3/prweb8248388.htm

   http://www.autodefe.com/articles/106861-bhopal-now-the-enduring-tragedy?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d8c89bbc66bfd9b%2C0

   -       In India, IANS reported the MP state ordered Guar's department to
   pay Bhopal gas widows a pension of Rs 1,000 per month for the next five
   years.

   http://www.asianage.com/india/bhopal-gas-tragedy-widows-get-rs1000-pension-946

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-03-31 22:19:53",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/391344_bhopal-update-03-31-11-media-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
391504,"Re: Wikileaks founder currently in the U.S.
","   Is he an Aussie?

   As a foreign national, we could revoke his travel status and deport.

   Could also be taken into custody as a material witness.

   We COULD have a sealed indictment and lock him up. Depends upon how far
   along the military case is.

   Did not read the profile.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Shane Harris <shanewharris@gmail.com>
   Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:31:35 -0400
   To: burton@stratfor.com<burton@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: Wikileaks founder currently in the U.S.
   Agreed. I'm surprised he came! Did you read the New Yorker profile of him?
   He's extraordinarily paranoid. 
   Can our people detain him on anything just based on suspicion re the
   cables? Would probably be a PR nightmare for the administration. 

   Sent from my iPhone
   On Jun 11, 2010, at 12:18 PM, \"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com> wrote:

     I would not be surprised the FBI talks to him while there or seizes his
     laptop...

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Shane Harris <shanewharris@gmail.com>
     Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:10:45 -0400
     To: Fred Burton<burton@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Wikileaks founder currently in the U.S.

     He's speaking on a panel today in Vegas. 
     http://data.nicar.org/conference/lasvegas10/showcase 

     --
     Shane Harris
     www.shaneharris.com
     202-489-4827 (mobile)
     202-862-3513 (office)
     Twitter: shanewharris
     Read THE WATCHERS: www.shaneharris.com/thewatchers
","2010-06-11 18:36:45",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/391504_re-wikileaks-founder-currently-in-the-u-s-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","shanewharris@gmail.com",""
391555,"Re: Insight - China/Tibet/Obama
","   Maybe, but he's choked on the national stage a few times now.  I can't get
   past his smile...makes him look sleazy.

   burton@stratfor.com wrote:

     Bobby Jindel? He's some sort of Indian.

     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Anya Alfano <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
     Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:58:58 -0500
     To: <burton@stratfor.com>
     Cc: Bartholomew Mongoven<mongoven@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Re: Insight - China/Tibet/Obama
     Tim Pawlenty is about as close as the GOP gets to a sharp, young and
     eligible governor. 

     burton@stratfor.com wrote:

       Romney can't make it. Mormons are viewed as Voo Doo.

       We need a sharp young Governor.

       I also like Michelle Bachman.

       Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       From: \"Bartholomew Mongoven\" <mongoven@stratfor.com>
       Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:52:13 -0500
       To: 'Anya Alfano'<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>; <burton@stratfor.com>
       Subject: RE: Insight - China/Tibet/Obama
       Pawlenty is good. 
        
       I think Romney could do it if he is himself.  He was as badly handled
       in 2008 as Al Gore was in 2000.  It should have been his nomination
       and he screwed it all up.
        
       Newt might actually pull the trigger.
        
       I think Huckabee could do it just to piss off people like me.
        
       I would tell Jeb that his time came and went when Katrina went under
       water.
        
       Frist would love to do it, but it'll take time for him to get up and
       running. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       From: Anya Alfano [mailto:anya.alfano@stratfor.com]
       Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 4:46 PM
       To: burton@stratfor.com
       Cc: Bartholomew Mongoven
       Subject: Re: Insight - China/Tibet/Obama
       The neocons on top of my hill all want Tim Pawlenty. 

       burton@stratfor.com wrote:

         The GOP folks I talk to are pushing Jeb Bush. I think that is a
         mistake. Who else is out there?

         Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: \"Bartholomew Mongoven\" <mongoven@stratfor.com>
         Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:39:03 -0500
         To: 'Anya Alfano'<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
         Cc: 'Fred Burton'<burton@stratfor.com>
         Subject: RE: Insight - China/Tibet/Obama
         Depends on where you are.  In your neck of the woods, people tend to
         think no one can do the right thing in Washington.  They think the
         world here is so corrupt that progress will always be stifled by the
         moneyed interests.  (Of course, the fact is that on domestic policy,
         it's like foreign policy -- the president can have his ideals but
         there are very few things he can do that won't screw up the
         country.  So he doesn't do them.  Watch climate, for instance.  It's
         not corporate lobbying holding him from a deal, it's China.  He
         won't commit economic suicide just to make environmentalists happy. 
         The environmentalists don't think it's suicide, so they think Obama
         has sold out.  It's sad really.)
          
         I think Mrs. P is far closer to a D.C. view of things.  The liberal
         factions in DC think Obama is being a pussy.  They don't want a
         climate deal that kills the US economy and gives everything to the
         Chinese, but they want someone to stand up to the Chinese and say
         \"this is the way it's going to be.\"  From a West Coast
         liberal perspective, that's inflaming rivalry and inviting
         conflict.  From an East Coast perspective, that's the only way to
         get a climate bill.  Right now, he's not going to commit suicide
         (Bay Area approach) but he's not going to back the Chinese down
         (Mrs. P) either. 
          
         Obama needs to get in a fight and do something really mean and
         unfair to the right. (Gays in the military/revoke Don't Ask Don't
         tell). He's afraid of the backlash.  He could also tell the banks to
         go screw themselves. Either way, he needs to do something that says
         he doesn't care about losing political capital.  By front loading
         health care and climate, he made being politically safe his primary
         objective.  He doesn't think he can afford to piss people off until
         those two are done.  (Back to Emanuel, whose job is to tell him that
         he shouldn't front load all of his controversial proposals.)
          
          
          
          

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: Anya Alfano [mailto:anya.alfano@stratfor.com]
         Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 4:17 PM
         To: Bartholomew Mongoven
         Cc: 'Fred Burton'
         Subject: Re: Insight - China/Tibet/Obama
         Bart, do you believe Mrs. P's thoughts are fairly mainstream among
         Obama supporters, or are most still fairly content?  I feel like I
         hear comments similar to Mrs. P all the time on other various
         issues, but my viewpoint is probably fairly skewed.  (Marx himself
         couldn't satisfy half the people here.)

         Bartholomew Mongoven wrote:

           I don't disagree that Biden is a weasel.  I think Emanuel is
           emasculating Obama by selling him on clever Clintonesque
           tactics. I would love to see Obama with someone more principled
           and less clever as Chief of Staff.  He needs a James Baker and he
           has a Donald Regan.  At least Clinton had Panetta at first to tell
           him when to not be a pussy.  Without Panetta Clinton was just a
           great tactician but he didn't get anything done (except get
           re-elected).
            
            

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
           Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 3:58 PM
           To: 'Bartholomew Mongoven'; 'Anya Alfano'
           Subject: RE: Insight - China/Tibet/Obama
           She blames Obama and Biden.  I dropped Emanuel into the soup and
           she said that he would be added to her list.  She believes Biden
           is weasel and Obama is a pussy.  I want her to fund my bid for
           Congress.  Yes, I can be bought.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: Bartholomew Mongoven [mailto:mongoven@stratfor.com]
           Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 10:55 AM
           To: 'Fred Burton'; 'Anya Alfano'
           Subject: RE: Insight - China/Tibet/Obama
           I remember that she had misgivings about supporting him during the
           primaries.  I assume that rather than support a challenger, she'll
           just sit out 2012 (unless Obama finds a spine).  I'd love to know
           if there was any talk about whether she and her set think it's him
           or his staff (esp. Emanuel) who is making his presidency so
           muddled so far.
            
            

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
           Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 9:02 AM
           To: 'Bartholomew Mongoven'; 'Anya Alfano'
           Subject: FW: Insight - China/Tibet/Obama
           Mrs. P

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
           Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 8:01 AM
           To: 'Secure List'
           Subject: Insight - China/Tibet/Obama
           From a billionaire Democratic fundraiser --
            
           The billionaire (who also funds ACORN) is greatly disappointed
           over Obama's \"weakness and wimpyness\" towards China (\"Fred, they
           only understand strength\") and Obama's failure to meet with the
           Dhali Lama.    The fundraiser stated he/she was personally
           disappointed (\"betrayed\") for helping Obama get into The White
           House and does not intend to support Obama next election, absent a
           drastic turn-around. 
            
            
","2009-11-06 23:08:21",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/391555_re-insight-china-tibet-obama-.html","Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com","","burton@stratfor.com,mongoven@stratfor.com",""
391771,"Bhopal update - 06-14-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   Hindustan Times reported on a group of disaster victims in India who
   \"still await justice\" - the families of those killed in the 1997 Uphaar
   cinema fire. The [Association of Victims of the Uphaar Tragegy] president
   Neelam Krishnamoorthy invoked the Bhopal gas tragedy regarding a 2009
   legislative proposal by the AVUT for \"legislation to prevent man-made
   tragedies in public places. For over two years, the matter has been
   pending with the Law Commission.\"

   http://www.hindustantimes.com/Uphaar-victims-still-await-justice/Article1-709079.aspx

   Rachna Dhingra emailed the ICJB distribution list with an item that has
   nothing to do with the Bhopal issue.

   She passed along a post from a left-wing US blog discussing a US Chamber
   of Commerce letter to Cass Sunstein, administrator of the Office of
   Information and Regulatory Affairs, \"telling him to block the regulation
   of extremely dangerous chemicals in consumer plastics,\" i.e. phthalates
   and BPA.

   Dow is mentioned at the end of the post, along with P&G, as having
   \"contributed millions to the Chamber's war chest in recent years.\"

   http://www.americablog.com/2011/06/us-chamber-of-commerce-fighting.html

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-06-14 17:18:45",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/391771_bhopal-update-06-14-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
391809,"Bhopal update - 08-09-11 Media #2
","   Scot, Tomm,

   UK media coverage of the Olympics stadium issue:

   -       The Daily Telegraph quoted \"Laurie Flynn, chairman of the trustees
   of the Bhopal Medical Appeal\" as being \"appalled\" at the Dow sponsorship,
   and called for the \"Olympic Movement\" to reconsider the stadium wrap deal.
   Flynn said there are \"court cases involving Dow outstanding in India and
   the United States, and that `many hundreds of people' had been
   contaminated in the years since the disaster.\"

   Dow's position on Bhopal is not given, but the London Olympic Committee
   statement about Dow, Bhopal and the sponsorship is.

   There was one brief comment about the Olympics being all about \"hard
   cash\"; the article has been shared about 35 times.

   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/8689856/London-2012-Olympics-sponsor-criticised-over-links-to-firm-responsible-for-Bhopal-disaster-Union-Carbide.html

   -       A second Telegraph article reported on the current rioting in
   London taking place at the same time 200 Olympic delegates were arriving
   in the city. One version of this article tied Flynnn's comments about Dow
   and Bhopal at the end. Full text available on request.

   -       The Times reported \"Olympic curtain deal is 'dancing on graves of
   Bhopal' with much the same content as the BBC's article, although
   Sarangi's quotes are paraphrased. Sports Minister Hugh Robertson said
   since the IOC had signed the ten-year sponsorship with Dow, \"there was no
   reason we should not follow them.\" Dow's position on the Bhopal issue ends
   the piece. Full text available on request; online access appears to
   require paid subscription.

   India media:

   -       PTI reported the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) expressed
   \"concern\" over the Dow sponsorship and Bhopal issue. The group's acting
   president, VK Malhotra said the GoI \"should look into it.\" This piece was
   picked up multiple times in India media, with print appearances in The
   Mint (p9, in \"need to know\" briefs) and Daily Pioneer's New Delhi edition
   (p16, sports section, bottom).

   http://www.rediff.com/sports/report/ioa-shows-concern-at-london-games-link-with-dow-chemical/20110809.htm

   -       A post of the 8/8 PTI story on the wrap sponsorship received
   several reader comments, including \"Killed those DOW Chemical b'tards
   there itself.\"

     (Daily Pioneer's print edition paired the two PTI stories on p16 at the
     bottom)

   http://www.rediff.com/sports/slide-show/slide-show-1-bhopal-gas-disaster-wrap-over-london-olympics/20110808.htm

   -       Hindustan Times' sports sections include a commentary by writer B
   Shrikant, who pointed out Malhotra \"forgets that his organization receives
   money from [Dow] via IOC.\" Shirkant added \"IOC's deal with Dow Chemicals
   is already a year old and can't be terminated now because of Malhotra's
   \"grave concerns.\"

     This appeared in the Mumbai (p 18) and New Delhi (p 21) editions.

   http://www.hindustantimes.com/Malhotra-bites-the-hand-that-feeds-IOA/Article1-731022.aspx

   -       Asian Age's New Delhi print edition included a short item titled
   \"British Olympics organisers play down Dow issue.\" The three paragraph
   article consists of one saying the LOC \"tried to play down the
   controversy\" over Dow's sponsorship, the second relates briefly Dow's
   purchase of UCC, and the third lists the several corporate Olympic
   partners. Full text available on request. The positioning is p8 on the
   left side, just above the fold.

   -       IANS reported on the activist intent to hold \"a parallel Olympics
   in London,\" quoting BMA trustee Tim Edwards, who is currently in Bhopal.
   He added, \"Bhopal is not the only place where Dow or Union Carbide has
   killed thousands of people from their poisonous units. They did it in
   Costa Rica, Indonesia and Vietnam too. So all the people and the children
   who became disabled will participate in this special Olympics.\" This
   article also included comments from Sarangi, Abdul Jabbar and Farha
   Edwards (Tim's wife).

   http://www.deccanherald.com/content/182298/parallel-games-disabled-dow-sponsors.html

   -       IANS, Daily Pioneer and Daily News & Analysis also reported on the
   ICJB's support of Anna Hazare's anti-corruption campaign and their press
   release about the drugs supplied for gas victims. DNA's Indore print
   edition placed the report at the top center of p5.

   http://www.nagalandpost.com/ChannelNews/National/NationalNews.aspx?news=TkVXUzEwMDAwMzgwNA%3d%3d-ZT7iVDRvptM%3d

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-08-09 17:49:35",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/391809_bhopal-update-08-09-11-media-2-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
392233,"Fw: Wikileaks founder currently in the U.S.
","     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Shane Harris <shanewharris@gmail.com>
   Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:10:45 -0400
   To: Fred Burton<burton@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Wikileaks founder currently in the U.S.

   He's speaking on a panel today in Vegas.*
   http://data.nicar.org/conference/lasvegas10/showcase*

   --
   Shane Harris
   www.shaneharris.com
   202-489-4827 (mobile)
   202-862-3513 (office)
   Twitter: shanewharris
   Read THE WATCHERS: www.shaneharris.com/thewatchers
","2010-06-11 18:11:44",1,"2012-03-01 23:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/392233_fw-wikileaks-founder-currently-in-the-u-s-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","PosillicoM2@state.gov",""
392546,"Bhopal update - 07-25-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   There were several more pickups of the Bhopal NGOs' press statement from
   Saturday, including India Today, which laid out in fairly clear reporting
   the sequence of events between UCC and the GoI that the NGOs were trying
   to vilify.

   India Today bought into some of the activist point of view, describing the
   negotiated settlement as seeking \"exemption from any liability\"; the four
   types of injury classes as \"camouflaging\" potential long-term health
   effects from the gas leak; and as \"shocking\" that the settlement specified
   UCC was not subject to \"future claims...arising out of, or connected with,
   the Bhopal gas leak disaster against either or both of them, their
   affiliates, directors, officers and employees.\"

   The article also noted the settlement \"freed Carbide of any liability in
   India.\"

   Rachna Dhingra emailed the text of the India Today article to the
   \"remember Bhopal\" email distribution list.

   http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/story/bhopal-gas-tragedy-union-carbide-india-deal/1/146044.html

   -       The Indian Muslims (TwoCircles.net, Ummid.com) post of the NGOs
   press statement was titled \"Documents reveal Union Carbide wanted to pay
   compensation to victims.\"

   -       The Daily News & Analysis appears to be the only print paper that
   published items on the NGOs' press conference, with articles on the front
   page (below the fold) on p5 at the top, of the Indore edition. The
   Saturday edition had a p5 version of the PTI article in which Rachna
   Dhingra claimed there was 27,000 more tonnes of chemical waste at the
   former UCIL factory site's solar ponds. Full texts available on request.

   Law et al News reported on the Maharashtra government's application for
   intervention in the MP High Court case on transportation and disposal of
   the Bhopal factory waste. This version also refers to the material as
   \"radioactive.\" The article does provide the filing's two main points:

   -       A No Objection Certificate for the waste transport was not
   obtained, and

   -       Madhya Pradesh has an incinerator

   The rest of the article appears to be identical to that reported yesterday
   from the Daily Pioneer.

   This article was posted on the BMA website.

   http://www.lawetalnews.com/NewsDetail.asp?newsid=4395

   Times of India reported the DRDO and its parent the Defence Research
   Development Establishment (DRDE) told the ToI the waste material is not
   hazardous, is \"nowhere as dangerous as the gas that caused the Bhopal
   tragedy, and is not likely to cause any damage due to any accident.\" The
   article related the DRDO process at the incinerator,which \"should not be
   confused with the Bhopal gas leak.\" The DRDO applied for approval for the
   incineration from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, which it said
   \"may be enough\" and is \"expected at any time.\" The DRDO reiterated the
   state of Madhya Pradesh is responsible for transporting the material.

   The article did note: \"At the same time, some experts, including
   government officials, were of the opinion that the waste should be cleaned
   up by Dow Chemicals of the USA. This would be an example of 'polluter
   pays' principle, they said.\"

   http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Bhopal-waste-not-hazardous-says-DRDO/articleshow/9349720.cms

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-07-25 18:11:52",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/392546_bhopal-update-07-25-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
392580,"Bhopal update - 07-11-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   Business Standard reported over the weekend the chemical waste from the
   former UCIL factory is to be disposed of at a Defense Research and
   Development (DRDO) facility at Nagpur. According to the article, approval
   has already been granted by the MP Pollution Control Board and DRDO is
   said to be ready to do the work \"any time.\"

   The article ended with a quote from Rachna Dhingra, who said Environment
   Minister Jairam Ramesh assured the NGOs they would \"be informed whenever
   there is movement of waste.\"

   The piece was also in the 7/9 print edition on p4 in the top right-hand
   corner.

   http://business-standard.com/india/news/union-carbide-toxic-waste-to-be-disposedat-drdo-nagpur/442112/

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-07-11 16:24:04",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/392580_bhopal-update-07-11-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
392726,"Bhopal update 09-19-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   IANS reported the Bhopal NGOs are putting together a \"traveling Bhopal gas
   tragedy museum\" in the form of a bus that is intended to tour the country
   for eleven months through most of 2012, then return to Bhopal to be a
   permanent exhibit. The project is planned to be ready to open by April
   2012, be on display in Bhopal for one month, then set out on tour.

   A new fund, the Remember Bhopal Trust, has been set up for the museum, and
   museologist Rama Lakshmi has been engaged by the gas survivors to curate
   the exhibit. Lakshmi told IANS museums \"telling the stories of social
   movements\" are found across the globe as \"safe sites for unsafe ideas\"
   such as the Holocaust or Apartheid.

   Satinath Sarangi said the bus museum is being developed because the
   gas-affected have not been consulted over any government-led gas accident
   memorial plans, and \"the government has no moral right to memorialise
   because it is complicit in the injustice meted out to the community.\"

   The piece has been picked up about a dozen times across Indian media.

   http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/bhopal-gas-tragedy-feeds-a-people-s-museum_732338.html

   Sarangi appeared on NewsX live panel program \"Waking the Green Giant\" with
   CSE Deputy Director General Chandra Bhushan and Greenpeace India
   campaigner Divya Raghunathan (also spelled Raghunandan). The 26-minute
   program covered a lot of ground, moving from water and air pollution to
   food contamination, and also the Bhopal gas tragedy (at 19:51 in the
   program). Sarangi highlighted \"The Other Disaster\" of pre-gas leak UCIL's
   waste disposal, which he said was designed by UCC and resulted in the
   broader environmental contamination and \"horrific birth defects\" in the
   current population.

   The moderator asked about the DRDO incineration proposal, with Sarangi
   responding the DRDO has been incinerating chemical weapons without the
   knowledge of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. Raghunanthan
   recalled the 2002 campaign of \"1,000 Bhopals\" to raise awareness of other
   industrial pollution sites in the country.

   In an interesting point near the end of the program was Bhushan defending
   Jairam Ramesh's decisions during his tenure as Environment and Forests
   Minister.

   The program is available to view on YouTube, although there have only been
   about 30 viewings. The program was uploaded on Sept. 17; it was unclear
   when it was broadcast.

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adU8uP8rUW0

   Daily News & Analysis reported the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI)
   reported the Bhopal gas victims were subjected to unethical drug trials at
   the Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Center. An inspection team also
   found other regulatory violations at the hospital during a visit in August
   2010. There is no indication of any ramifications of the DCGI's report.
   The MP government's report on the drug trials is still pending.

   The article appeared on the front page of DNA's Indore edition today.

   http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/MP-BHO-unethical-drug-trials-on-gas-victims-dgci-fumes-2441457.html

   Youth Kiwaaz, an Indian youth politics and law forum, published an
   analysis titled \"The Role Economic Forces Played In Influencing Legal
   Developments After Bhopal Gas Leak.\" The conclusion is \"The failure of the
   Indian government to hold the UCC liable and pierce the corporate veil
   goes to show that UOI was ready to industrialize the nation even at the
   cost of the Bhopal victims.\"

   http://www.youthkiawaaz.com/2011/09/the-role-economic-forces-played-in-influencing-legal-developments-after-bhopal-gas-leak/

   Economic Times published a lengthy report on the \"Life and Death of Shehla
   Masood,\" the Right To Information activist from who was shot and killed
   outside her Bhopal home several weeks ago. The writer observed the Bhopal
   gas activist community \"has never really warmed up to Shehla's cause,\"
   which Rachna Dingra commented may have been because \"she wasn't so known
   in activist circles.\" She noted RTI activists tend to be more \"involved
   with government.\"

   http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/The-life-and-death-of-Shehla-Masood/848087/

   Also of interest, the Sundance Film Festival is going to spend one day of
   its 2012 festival screening films in nine cities around the country,
   including Ann Arbor.

   http://realscreen.com/2011/09/16/sundance-film-festival-traveling-to-nine-american-cities/

   The only activist information to report at this time, is the ICJB Boston
   (Boston 4 Bhopal) group has a meeting this evening in Cambridge, possibly
   to prepare for protesting Friday's Dow recruiting session at Tufts.

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-09-19 18:33:57",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/392726_bhopal-update-09-19-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
393353,"Bhopal update - 10-10-11 bandh protest Oct 11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   Five organizations representing Bhopal gas victims have called for a
   Bhopal Bandh (a large strike) to be held on Tuesday, October 11. The
   protest is to demand the Centre and state government \"present actual
   figures of health damages...in the curative petition that would be heard
   in the Supreme Court soon.\" According to Satinath Sarangi and Rachna
   Dhingra, \"Union Carbide, Dow Chemical and both the governments have
   presented thoroughly unscientific data on the deaths and health damage
   caused by the disaster,\" and they alleged that internal Union Carbide
   documents \"showed that 93 percent of the survivors have been wrongfully
   categorized as temporarily injured\" and given the wrong compensation. The
   groups stated they have \"received support from all workers, traders and
   mass organizations for the proposed bandh.\" The Pioneer and IBNS reported
   the groups will also \"be taking out an awareness rally from Peer Gate on
   Monday at 3pm.\"

   -IANS

   http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=462718&version=1&template_id=40&parent_id=22

   -UNI

   http://news.webindia123.com/news/articles/India/20111008/1847348.html

   -The Pioneer

   http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/12106-bhopal-bandh-on-tuesday-to-support-gas-victims.html

   -IBNS

   http://www.newkerala.com/news/2011/worldnews-83369.html

   http://www.newkerala.com/news/2011/worldnews-83885.html

    

    

   Marissa Martin

   Business Intelligence Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

    

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.

    
","2011-10-10 16:55:28",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/393353_bhopal-update-10-10-11-bandh-protest-oct-11-.html","mmartin@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
393478,"Yes Men monitoring 10-14-11
","   Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum has traveled to Los Angeles for the \"Occupy\" action
   there. A short YouTube video shows him explaining he had \"spent lots of
   time\" at the Occupy New York protest and the LA version is \"lovely, keep
   it up.\"

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukyZlhnppH4

   The Yes Men tweeted once this week, encouraging readers to join the Occupy
   New York gathering.

   Regards,

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-10-14 22:11:26",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/393478_yes-men-monitoring-10-14-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","mkolleth@dow.com,sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
393640,"DOW CONFIDENTIAL -- Bhopal monitoring 09-09-11
","","2011-09-10 00:05:12",1,"2012-02-27 20:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/393640_dow-confidential-bhopal-monitoring-09-09-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com,JDavis5@dow.com,rchitkara@dow.com","attach/34/34506_Activist info 09-08-11 BMA - factsheet.pdf
attach/34/34511_Activist info 09-08-11 Wikileaks - Dow.pdf
attach/34/34720_Blog 09-05-11 Games Monitor.pdf
attach/34/34721_Activist info 09-05-11 BMA%20Briefing.pdf
attach/34/34722_Activist info 09-05-11 Bhopali - ICJB conference.pdf
attach/34/34736_Activist email 09-07-11 YM fundraising.pdf
attach/34/34737_Social media 09-07-11 ICJB US conference - Facebook.pdf
attach/34/34738_Social media 09-03 to 09-09-11 anti-Dow Olympic FB page.pdf
attach/34/34739_Social media 09-07-11 ICJB US conference attendees - Facebook.pdf
attach/34/34740_Activist info 09-09-11 YM kickstarter page.pdf
attach/34/34741_Activist info 09-08-11 GP Intl blog.pdf"
393642,"Bhopal update - 09-06-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   The media so far today is all tangential to the core Bhopal issues.

   -       Three are pieces on the need for a National Health Bill in India,
   mostly based on a speech by N.R. Madhava Menon, who \"referred to the 
   Bhopal Gas Tragedy\" as illustrating \"inadequate\" government resources and
   programs to address health and justice needs. The appearances were via
   IANS, PTI, and India Pharma News.

   IANS: 
   http://in.news.yahoo.com/early-enactment-national-health-bill-needed-175817027.html

   -       Four are on literary references to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy: the
   Siddhartha Deb book \"The Beautiful and the Damned\" that includes a section
   on gas activist Abdul Jabbar, (Business Standard, India Today and The
   Brooklyn Rail); a fiction piece by Shashi Warrior, \"So Betrayed\" relates a
   gas survivor's account of the how the tragedy affected his family's lives;
   (Business Standard); and a Frontline review of two books on corruption in
   India included a photo of the Bhopal gas activists submitting RTI
   applications in New Delhi.

   http://www.flonnet.com/stories/20110923281907500.htm

   -       Mail Today cited the Bhopal gas tragedy in workplace rulings  by
   the Indian Supreme Court in an article on judicial activism in Pakistan.

   From activist resources:

   -       The Chingari Trust blog posted a photo and note from Slumdog
   Millionaire actor Dev Patel resulting from a recent visit he made to the
   Chingari facility. He complimented Champa Devi Shukla and Rashida Bee as
   \"extraordinary individuals.\"

   -       UK activist Ian Jarvis posted a new item to his blog reporting on
   his stay at the Sambhavna Clinic. This post was solely about the workings
   of the clinic's environmentally friendly clothes washer.

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-09-06 17:25:05",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/393642_bhopal-update-09-06-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
393926,"Bhopal update - 09-16-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   The BMA website has a new issue of the \"777\" BMA newsletter, credited as
   the Summer 2011 issue. The issue features the Chingari Trust, the water
   supply situation in Bhopal, the Bhopali film, and the Glastonbury
   Festival. There are only a few items that are truly interesting.

   -       Peter Finnigan wrote an introductory column to the issue and said
   the \"long legal and political struggle\" has brought \"further
   frustrations,\" noting the Supreme Court dismissed the criminal case
   curative petition. He explained briefly the remaining curative petition
   issues on compensation amounts and eligibility, and said the remediation
   issue is at a \"legal stalemate.\"

     Finnigan also noted the BMA hopes the Bhopali documentary \"will be
     widely available in the near future.\"

   -       The Chingari Trust article is unremarkable, but is accompanied by
   photos from \"Alex Masi/Focus For Humanity.\"

   -       Colin Toogood wrote a brief article on the issue of supplying
   water to Bhopal's gas-affected neighborhoods as \"the ongoing crisis.\" He
   reported the pipeline system project \"was rudimentary and laid along the
   ground, making it easily ruptured.\" Most residents still rely on the water
   tankers arriving, although the frequency of delivery varies from 2-3 days
   to more than a week, which leaves the residents to rely on the water pumps
   that are alleged to be contaminated.

   -       A report on the Bhopali film has description from film maker Max
   Carlson about his and Kirk Palayan's visits to Bhopal and the events and
   information used to create the film. The piece ends with \"Release details
   for `Bhopali' are still being finalized.\"

   -       The Glastonbury Festival report by Roz Shearn claims the event was
   highly successful, as \"literally thousands of people came to visit\" the
   BMA's installation of tent and \"sculpture garden.\" Shearn explained the
   BMA litterpicker fundraising was intended to \"make a link between cleaning
   up Glastonbury and cleaning up Bhopal.\" A list of the individuals involved
   in the effort is included.

     Due to the size of the file (nearly 4MB), the issue is available on
     request, either in its entirety, or as the individual articles.

   The BMA Twitter and Facebook accounts have just one new item - a CSRWire
   press release about a Merck water, sanitation and hygiene initiative in
   India. The BMA comment is: \"This is a decent initiative. But, wouldn't it
   be great to see another well-known US Corporation clean all of the heavy
   metals, volatile organic compounds and solvents out of the ground water in
   Bhopal?\"

   The only media to report today is a Down To Earth article asking why the
   Bhopal dharnas in New Delhi did not receive the same resources and
   considerations as the Anna Hazare RTI protest.

   http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/idea-corruption

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-09-16 20:45:45",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/393926_bhopal-update-09-16-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
393929,"Climate Change Daily Feed - 15 September 2011 - Climate Change Policy & Practice
","                Having trouble viewing this email? Please try our Browser Version.                 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|  IISD                                                                                          | 
|Reporting                                                                                       | 
|Services              Climate Change Daily Feed - Climate Change Policy & Practice              | 
|- Climate A daily compilation of items recently posted to the Climate Change Policy & Practice  | 
| Change               knowledgebase of international activities on climate change               | 
|Policy &                                                                                        | 
|Practice                                                                                        | 
|                                Latest News - 15 September 2011                                 | 
| GEF Promotes Climate Change Dialogue with       63rd CDM Executive Board Meeting Agenda Open   | 
| African Youth                                   for Comments                                   | 
|     Read More: GEF Promotes Climate Change       Read More: 63rd CDM Executive Board Meeting   | 
|          Dialogue with African Youth                       Agenda Open for Comments            | 
|                                                                                                | 
| 14_September 2011: The Global Environment       12_September 2011: The Executive Board of the  | 
| Facility (GEF), through the                     Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has invited  | 
| initiative Connect4Climate has initiated an     input from the public on the annotated agenda  | 
| interactive dialogue on climate change issues   for its 63rd meeting, which is scheduled to    | 
| amongst African youth and social media users    take place from 25-29 September 2011, in       | 
| around the world. continued...                  Quito, Ecuador. continued...                   | 
|                                                                                                | 
| UNDP Launches Guidebook on Designing National   FAO Launches Global Soil Partnership for Food  | 
| Climate Financing Mechanisms                    Security and Climate Change Adaptation and     | 
|     Read More: UNDP Launches Guidebook on       Mitigation                                     | 
|      Designing National Climate Financing            Read More: FAO Launches Global Soil       | 
|                   Mechanisms                      Partnership for Food Security and Climate    | 
|                                                        Change Adaptation and Mitigation        | 
| 14_September 2011: The UN Development                                                          | 
| Programme (UNDP) has launched report that       9_September 2011: The Food and Agriculture     | 
| provides a step-by-step guide to developing     Organization of the UN (FAO) is calling for a  | 
| countries in setting up national climate funds  renewed international effort to promote and    | 
| and in making informed decisions on climate     assure healthy and fertile soils as a          | 
| financing options. The guidebook, \"Blending     component of the new Global Soil Partnership   | 
| Climate Finance through National Climate        for Food Security and Climate Change           | 
| Funds: A Guidebook for the Design and           Adaptation and Mitigation. continued...        | 
| Establishment of National Funds to Achieve                                                     | 
| Climate Change Priorities,\" is based on UNDP's                                                 | 
| experience with 750 funds comprising over US$5                                                 | 
| billion in resources from various donors.                                                      | 
| continued...                                                                                   | 
|                                                                                                | 
|             Climate Change Policy & Practice Calendar: Current & Upcoming Events               | 
|  Centralized Annual Reviews 2011                    Bonn, Germany            29 Aug - 24 Sep   | 
|  28th Session on the European Forestry                                                         | 
|  Commission Working Party on the                        Turkey               12 Sep - 16 Sep   | 
|  Management of Mountain Watersheds                                                             | 
|  Fourth Special Session of the African                                                         | 
|  Ministerial Conference on the                       Bamako, Mali            12 Sep - 16 Sep   | 
|  Environment (AMCEN)                                                                           | 
|  Asia Regional Meeting Preparatory to              Bali, Indonesia           14 Sep - 16 Sep   | 
|  UNCCD COP 10                                                                                  | 
|  Researchers' Workshop and Conference on                                                       | 
|  Climate Change and Migration in Asia and        Manila, Philippines         14 Sep - 16 Sep   | 
|  the Pacific                                                                                   | 
|  The Ocean Carbon Cycle at a Time of                Paris, France            14 Sep - 16 Sep   | 
|  Change: Synthesis and Vulnerabilities                                                         | 
|  CLEAN-Linking Open Data Webinar                       virtual                   15 Sep        | 
|  15th Meeting of the Adaptation Fund                Bonn, Germany            15 Sep - 16 Sep   | 
|  Board                                                                                         | 
|  26th Meeting of the Joint Implementation           Bonn, Germany            15 Sep - 16 Sep   | 
|  Supervisory Committee                                                                         | 
|  Pre-UNFCCC COP 17 African Energy             Johannesburg, South Africa     15 Sep - 16 Sep   | 
|  Ministers Conference                                                                          | 
|  International Symposium on Costs and                                                          | 
|  Benefits of REDD Plus: What, Who, How          Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia       19 Sep - 20 Sep   | 
|  and When?                                                                                     | 
|  Quantifying and managing land use                 Campinas, Brazil          19 Sep - 21 Sep   | 
|  impacts of bioenergy                                                                          | 
|  63rd Meeting of the CDM Executive Board            Bonn, Germany            19 Sep - 23 Sep   | 
|  AU Regional Geothermal Working Group              Kampala, Uganda           19 Sep - 23 Sep   | 
|  Meeting                                                                                       | 
|  FANRPAN Annual High Level Regional Food              Swaziland              19 Sep - 23 Sep   | 
|  Security Policy Dialogue                                                                      | 
|  UN Private Sector Forum: Access to       New York, United States of America     20 Sep        | 
|  Energy For All                                                                                | 
|  UNGA High-Level Event on Desertification New York, United States of America     20 Sep        | 
|  CBD Africa Regional Consultation and                                                          | 
|  Capacity Building Workshop on REDD+,          Cape Town, South Africa       20 Sep - 23 Sep   | 
|  Including on Relevant Biodiversity                                                            | 
|  Safeguards                                                                                    | 
|  UNFCCC Workshop on Promoting Risk                                                             | 
|  Management Approaches on the Specific                                                         | 
|  Needs and Concerns of Developing Country           Bonn, Germany                21 Sep        | 
|  Parties Arising from the Impact of the                                                        | 
|  Implementation of Response Measures                                                           | 
|  Experts Meeting on Climate Change                                                             | 
|  Education for Sustainable Development             Nassau, Bahamas           21 Sep - 23 Sep   | 
|  and Adaptation in SIDS                                                                        | 
|  Seventh \"Environment for Europe\"                 Astana, Kazakhstan         21 Sep - 23 Sep   | 
|  Ministerial Conference                                                                        | 
|                                                                                                | 
|    Subscribe to our iCalendar and your computer will gain access to all the events listed in   | 
|            our Climate Change Policy & Practice Calendar ( Learn More | Subscribe )            | 
|            Please send suggestions for articles to Alice Bisiaux at alice@iisd.org             | 
|     Funding for Climate Change Policy & Practice has been provided by the Swiss Agency for     | 
|                   Development and Cooperation Global Program Climate Change                    | 
|                                             [IMG]                                              | 
|                                                                                                | 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------      
                                                                                                   
    Climate Change Policy & Practice is a knowledge management project for international           
    negotiations and related activities on climate change. It was launched in 2008 and is          
    managed by by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) Reporting         
    Services, which is fully responsible for the content posted on Climate Change Policy &         
    Practice. Information on United Nations activities is provided in cooperation with the         
    UN system agencies, funds and programmes through the United Nations System Chief               
    Executives Board for Coordination (UN CEB) Secretariat and the UN Communications Group         
    (UNCG) Task Force on Climate Change. Click here for further information on Climate             
    Change Policy & Practice                                                                       
                                                                                                   
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------      

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------   
      You are currently subscribed to climate-l as: mongoven@stratfor.com     
                                                                              
        View climate-l Forum            Membership Options / Unsubscribe      
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------   
   IISD is pleased to announce the launch of Sustainable Development Policy & 
                                    Practice                                  
        A Knowledgebase of International Activities Preparing for the UN      
           Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, or Rio +20)          
                             http://uncsd.iisd.org/                           
                                                                              
     We also invite you to subscribe to UNCSD-L and post your UNCSD-related   
                     activities on this community listserv.                   
                                                                              
           Subscribe / More Information            View UNCSD-L Forum         
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------   
   Subscribe to all other IISD Reporting Services' free newsletters and lists 
      for environment and sustainable development policy professionals at     
                     http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm                   
","2011-09-15 20:01:58",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/393929_climate-change-daily-feed-15-september-2011-climate-change.html","iisd-rs@iisd.org","","mongoven@stratfor.com",""
394197,"Bhopal update - 06/01/11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   The BMA website has been updated with the three most recent Dow-related
   media items:

   -       The Express Buzz commentary from 5/30 on the Anderson extradition
   issue

   -       The PTI article reporting on the CIC's recommendation the Ministry
   of External Affairs release RTI-requested documents about Anderson

   -       The Economic Times article reporting the Ag Ministry sent notices
   to DAS India asking why it should not delist DAS product registrations.

   Colin Toogood posted on Twitter and Facebook links to the Express Buzz
   commentary with the note \"A tale of two legal battles.\"

   Print media today Asian Age, Indian Express (New Delhi editions) and Daily
   News & Analysis (Mumbai edition) included reports on the CIC
   recommendation to release the GoI communications regarding Anderson. All
   were below the fold on interior pages.

   TwoCircles.net published an enhanced version of the CIC story, saying the
   recommendation was to \"make public all letters that [the MEA] has issued
   or received concerning Bhopal gas leak of December 1984.\"

   This story reported the RTI application by Afroz Alam \"Sahil\" \"includes
   all correspondence between the ministry and Central Bureau of
   Investigation (CBI) from April 1984 to July 1995; photocopies of all
   letters written by the ministry to any department; letters received by the
   ministry from the Central Government and the Madhya Pradesh Government
   concerning Bhopal gas leak; and details of all expenditure incurred by the
   ministry.\"

   The CI Commissioner cited the documents should be released as they are \"of
   significance to the general public, especially the families of the victims
   who have been awaiting justice since over last two decades.\"

   http://twocircles.net/2011jun01/cic_orders_foreign_ministry_reveal_bhopal_letters.html

   Economic Times published an error-riddled report that \"a special court\"
   for India's Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) \"framed\" charges against
   two government officials who allegedly received payments to register
   pesticide products for De-Nocil. This article by Rajender Nagaroki said
   the payments were made by DAS India Ltd. Mumbai, \"a subsidiary of Dow
   Chemicals,\" rather than by DE-Nocil.

   It also refered to \"the Dow scam\" as being \"unearthed by the U.S.
   Securities and Exchange Commission\" in 2007, which \"fined Dow Chemicals
   $325,000 for bribing the officials in India.\"

   The piece ended with a reference to Dow's 2001 merger with UCC, \"which was
   lying closed after the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy.\"

   http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/environment/pollution/cbi-files-chargesheet-in-dow-pesticide-case/articleshow/8671900.cms

   Indian media reported the Delhi Police removed a ban it had imposed on
   protests at \"key\" areas in the city such as Jantar Mantar and India Gate.
   The action was the result of a lawsuit filed by Bhopal gas victim Bano Bi
   from the 2010 ICJB protest at Jantar Mantar when the activists were not
   allowed to camp at the protest site, but had to repair to another location
   each evening. Future applications for protest permits to use the sites
   will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

   The Hindu, Hindustan Times and Indian Express each published in-house
   reports.

   Hindu  http://www.hindu.com/2011/06/01/stories/2011060161570400.htm

   HT 
   http://www.hindustantimes.com/After-HC-order-prepare-for-rallies-at-India-Gate/Article1-704240.aspx

   HT 
   http://www.hindustantimes.com/Be-ready-for-major-traffic-jams-at-India-Gate/Article1-704235.aspx

   IE 
   http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ban-on-protests-at-jantar-mantar-india-gate-lifted/797877/0

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-06-01 19:43:06",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/394197_bhopal-update-06-01-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
394241,"Yes Men monitoring - 07-22-11 - updated
","   The Sacramento Bee on 7/17 reported on activists that employ hoaxes,
   including Yes Men's Bhopal/BBC hoax and the Yes Men partnering with
   Rainforest Action Network to hijack Chevron's \"Yes, We Can\" ad campaign. A
   communications firm representative stated corporations like Dow \"make
   things worse for themselves when they step in\" to respond to the Yes Men's
   actions, such as when Dow \"loudly distanced itself from a humane gesture
   like compensating the victims of the tragic accident at Bhopal, still
   suffering 20 years later. Bichlbaum was quoted at length and answered
   questions on some other Yes Men actions, including the SurvivaBall. Sierra
   Club chairman Carl Pope spoke highly of the Yes Men, because companies
   \"must rebut\" when they are the victim of Yes Men actions.

   http://www.sacbee.com/2011/07/17/3773241/these-giant-organizations-were.html

   The Yes Men have been quiet again this week, there are no updates to
   report from their websites or social media.

   -       A few other Twitter users are seeing physical similarities between
   Andy Bichlbaum and James Murdoch, and are calling for Bichlbaum to be cast
   as Murdoch in a movie version of the News of the World/News Corp scandal.

   -       AlterNet posted the Yes! magazine article from last week in which
   Bichlbaum and Bonanno chose four other \"protests that shook the world
   (with laughter)\" and the publication editors added the BBC/Bhopal hoax for
   a total of five pranks.

   Regards,

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-07-22 23:39:22",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/394241_yes-men-monitoring-07-22-11-updated-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","mkolleth@dow.com,sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
394301,"Bhopal update - 11-14-11 Media #1
","   Scot, Tomm

   Here are the initial wire reports on the ICJB's press conference:

   -       AP reported \"at least 21\" Indian Olympians called for LOCOG to
   drop Dow's sponsorship, calling it \"offensive to the spirit of the Olympic
   Games.\" The only person quoted by AP is Safreen Khan of Children Against
   Dow-Carbide, who said \"hundreds of children are being born disabled\" and
   blamed Dow for the lack of remediation in Bhopal. LOCOG is noted as
   standing firm on the Dow sponsorship, and Dow's position on the Bhopal
   issue is given. The article noted Dow's India office referred inquiries to
   the US headquarters.

   http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45284750

   -       IBNS issued what is likely the closest iteration of the ICJB press
   release, as usual. Three Olympians appeared at the press conference in
   Bhopal: \"Inam - Ur - Rehman, B P Govinda, Syed Ali and Jalaluddin Rizvi,\"
   and said, \"national and international Olympians should oppose the unholy
   alliance with the poisoner of Bhopal. \"

     Representatives of the five Bhopal activist groups & NGOs are quoted -
     Safreen Khan, Dhingra, Rashida Bee, Balkrishna Namdeo and Nawab Khan.
     Bee said neither PM Singh's office nor the Indian Olympic Association
     have responded or acted on the ICJB's request that they contact LOCOG
     and demand Dow's sponsorship be dropped.

   http://www.newkerala.com/news/2011/worldnews-106332.html

   -       PTI published a brief report from Chennai that Hockey Olympians
   Vasudevan Baskaran and Charles Cornelius held a press conference in
   conjunction with the ICJB's press event in Bhopal.

   http://www.newkerala.com/news/2011/worldnews-106332.html

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-11-14 15:28:50",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/394301_bhopal-update-11-14-11-media-1-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
394732,"Bhopal update - 08-11-11 media #1
","   Scot, Tomm,

   Maharashtra media the Hitavada published on its front two pages an article
   previewing the Jabalpur High Court hearing scheduled for today on the
   question of whether the Bhopal factory chemical waste can and will be sent
   to the DRDO incinerator near Nagpur. The article related the legal filings
   and rulings leading up to today's hearing. It also reported the MP state
   documents about the site have been supplied to the Maharashtra Pollution
   Control Board, and the MPCB `is likely seek more time\" for the report it
   was due to provide the court today. The \"state\" (presumably Maha) \"has set
   up an expert committee of high level officials to study the [MP] reports.\"
   However, the MPCB's analysis of samples it was directed to collect from
   the factory site \"could not be done\" to meet today's deadline \"due to
   Monsoon session [sic] and oil spill near Mumbai.\"

   The hearing today is scheduled to include \"NGOs and others who are seeking
   intervention in the matter and recall of order.\" Full text available on
   request.

   IBNS reported the ICJB sent its letter to PM Singh about Dow's Olympic
   sponsorship, as previously mentioned, and to the president of the Indian
   Olympic Associaiton. The NGO group also said petitions would be circulated
   among athletes and the British public for signatures and \"to register
   their protest on Dow's sponsorship.\" The report quoted Rachna Dhingra on
   behalf of the BGIA, who alleged Dow's action in addressing UCC issues in
   the US but not in India is \"racist.\"

   The Bhopal activists said \"The Organising Committees of Olympics hugely
   underestimate the negative fallout\" that can occur from Dow's sponsorship.

   http://www.indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsPage/newsDetails110811c.php

   The AroundtheRings Olympics blog reported \"Dow rejects criticisms\" of its
   Olympic sponsorship. In addition to Dow's position statement, the article
   included the BMA's blog comments by Lorraine Close and those from Indian
   Olympic Association president V.K. Malhotra calling for Dow's sponsorship
   to be cancelled.

   http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=37640

   Daily News & Analysis reported the MP govt \"on Tuesday set up an inquiry
   commission to examine the various aspects of the [Bhopal gas] accident.\"
   The panel is to consider the \"role of the state administration and others
   in the arrest, release and providing safe passage to Warren Anderson (UCC
   chief), leading to his ascension (sic)\" and \"basic issues such whether the
   UCC plant was set up in compliance of strict regulations, and whether it
   was equipped with adequate safety measures and whether it took safety
   measures in disposal of the hazardous waste.\" Some observers are skeptical
   of the move, calling it politically expedient, while others considered it
   \"better late than never.\"

   http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_27-years-later-mp-sets-up-panel-to-probe-bhopal-gas-leak_1574710

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-08-11 16:42:01",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/394732_bhopal-update-08-11-11-media-1-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
395232,"Bhopal update - 11-08-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   The Independent published a clarification statement on Dow regarding the
   11/3 \"Bhopal poisoner\" headline and the 2001 acquisition of UCC. The note,
   not currently available online, included: \"There should be therefore no
   suggestion that Dow were in any way responsible for the 1984 Bhopal
   disaster\" and the detail that UCIL \"had responsibility for the day to day
   operation of the plant,\" not UCC. Full text available on request.

   Huffington Post UK reported on McDonald's providing training for \"key
   staff\" of the London Olympics. Near the end, the article included a list
   of the Games' main sponsors, with three sentences explaining the criticism
   aimed at Dow over the Bhopal issue. Amnesty's call for LOCOG to \"reassess
   their association\" with Dow is also mentioned.

   http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/08/london-2012-mcdonalds-train-staff_n_1081340.html?ref=uk

   A Current TV post on Len Aldis' Agent Orange Activist Group on the topic
   of \"Bring down Monsanto\" has a lengthy comment by \"JanforGore\" about \"DOW,
   Dupont and those companies which provided the chemical weapons of war and
   other toxic products that still affect subsequent generations of humans
   from Vietnam, to Bhopal, to the U.S.\" The comment included a paragraph
   about former Mich. Gov. Jennifer Granholm and her brief tenure on the Dow
   board.

   AOAG page:  http://current.com/1jb6ikc

   Comment page: 
   http://current.com/community/93530679_bring-down-monsanto.htm

   PTI reported on anti-nuclear activist demands for information on the
   proposed Koodankulam Nuclear Power plant. The protesters said they \"should
   not be left in the lurch like the Bhopal gas victims.\"

   http://www.rediff.com/news/report/anti-nuke-leaders-demand-status-paper-on-koodankulam-plant/20111108.htm

   Signatures:

   -       The UK Early Day Motion has one new signer: Greg Mulholland from
   Leeds North West, of the Liberal Democrats party.

   -       The Change.org petition to Lord Coe currently has 868 signatures.

   The BMA Twitter and Facebook pages posted links to email directly to UK
   govt officials and ask them to sign the EDM. Other new links include:

   -       A post on IOC website TeamUSA.org of the 11/3 AP article on the UK
   MPs questioning Dow's Olympic sponsorship credentials

   -       The 11/4 Siaset article on the CIC directing BMHRC to comply with
   Rachna Dhingra's RTI requests.

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-11-08 18:38:50",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/395232_bhopal-update-11-08-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
395271,"Bhopal update - 11-10-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   The BMA Facebook and Twitter feeds posted links to Agent Orange activist
   Len Aldis' website \"Britain-Vietnam Friendship Society,\" and the Midland
   Daily News article on Dow funding remediation of the Tittabawassee River
   near its Midland plant.

   -       The BVFS link was introduced by BMA as \"More Dow (and Monsanto)
   fun and games with Agent Orange.\" The BVFS site links to an online
   petition addressed to Pres. Obama calling for reversal of the 2009 U.S.
   Supreme Court decision against Vietnamese people seeking compensation from
   Dow and Monsanto. The BMA's Colin Toogood appears to be the most recent
   person to sign the petition.

   -       BMA's comment on the MDN story is \"Dow to clean up! er, in the 
   US...\"

   The BMA's Change.org petition to Lord Coe has about 925 signatures this
   morning. Petition originator Lorraine Close had urged supporters to reach
   1,000 signatures yesterday.

   Media

   -       Discovery Channel's green website Treehugger.com reported on
   Coca-Cola's initiative to recycle all of the clear PET bottles at the
   London Olympics, then questioned the validity of the Games \"green\" claims,
   based on Dow's sponsorship of the Olympic stadium wrap. At that point,
   Treehugger's Business/Corporate Responsibility reporter Rachel Cernansky
   inserted quotes from the 11/3 Independent and AP articles on the MP's
   questioning Lord Coe on the Dow sponsorship decision.

     The article has not received any comments, but has been tweeted 55
     times.

   http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/coca-cola-launch-major-recycling-iniative-london-olympics.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+treehuggersite+%28Treehugger%29

   -       Pacific Free Press, a Left media source based in British Columbia,
   posted a lengthy and particularly vitriolic article by a retired British
   \"counsellor\" named Terrence Stone. He includes the Bhopal gas accident
   among several topics covered in the piece. On the Bhopal topic, he claims
   \"all those deaths were murders\"; \"The management of Union Carbide back in
   the USA gloated over the money they'd saved by cutbacks in safety,
   ignoring repeated warnings of imminent catastrophe\"; and \"Dow Chemical
   eventually ended up buying the still unsafe plant and is one of the major
   producers of pesticides in India today, along with Monsanto.\"

     Stone and his wife had traveled to South Asia last year and crossed
     paths with \"an American couple who belong to The Friends of Bhopal,\" who
     gave him Dominque LaPierre's book It Was Five Past Midnight in Bhopal.
     The other topics in the article are Agent Orange and Napalm use during
     the Vietnam war (specifically in Cambodia), and former Secretary of
     State Henry Kissinger's \"Operation Breakfast\" campaign of bombing in
     Cambodia.

   http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1-/10140-same-as-it-ever-was-murder-inc-sequels.html

   -       A US EPA press release about a Missouri pharmaceutical company
   paying a fine for environmental violations ends with a description of the
   US Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) being
   enacted in the wake of the Bhopal gas accident and \"a later toxic release
   from a West Virginia chemical plant.\"

   http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/f4d30b69ceaf486d8525794300620ead?OpenDocument

   -       Film review website Pajiba included the Bhopal gas accident in an
   article about man-made or natural disasters the writer would like to see
   used as \"backdrops for a Hollywood disaster movie.\"

   http://www.pajiba.com/pajiba_storytellers/10-manmade-and-natural-disasters-that-would-make-awesome-badass-backdrops-for-a-hollywood-disaster-movie.php

   Also of interest, a Dow Corning press release announced it will \" feature
   silicone-based solutions for use in transdermal drug delivery, topical
   treatment and pharmaceutical processing at CPhI India 2011, 30 Nov - 2 Dec
   2011 at Bombay Exhibition Centre, Mumbai, India.\"

   This may be a protest opportunity for the Bhopal activists, especially
   given the recent controversy over questionable ethics involved in the
   BMHRC's inclusion of gas-affected patients in drug trials.

   http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=149026

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-11-10 17:22:42",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/395271_bhopal-update-11-10-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
395677,"Bhopal update - 11-23-11 media
","   Scot, Tomm,

   India Blooms News Service (IBNS) picked up the Tessa Jowell press release
   from the UK Labour Party website and noted \", in India on the other hand
   there is a situation where neither the Sports Minister or any MP in the
   Congress or the opposition has raised any objections to the issue of Dow
   sponsoring the Olympics.\"

   The article cited Rachna Dhingra describing the ICJB petition opposing the
   sponsorship that was signed by the 22 former Olympians from India, and the
   several officials to whom it was addressed. The remainder of the article
   quoted from Jowell's press release.

   http://www.newkerala.com/news/2011/worldnews-112293.html

   Hindustan Times reported on opposition to the planned Jaitapur nuclear
   power plant, discussing political opposition by the Shiv Sena party and
   local activist protests planned for Dec. 3, \"a day of protests against
   industrial disasters.\"

   Shiv Sena: 
   http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/mumbai/Sena-targets-state-over-Jaitapur-again/Article1-772799.aspx

   Local protest: 
   http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/After-seven-months-protests-begin-again/Article1-772803.aspx

   Daily News & Analysis published an oddly written article about \"noted
   ecologist Madhav Gadgil\" calling for citizens to \"ensure\" laws written for
   environmental protection during \"progress.\" Gadgil claimed to have
   discovered \"rampant falsification of statistics by government officials\"
   while conducting research on \"the Bhopal gas tragedy and the Goa mining
   scam.\" No specifics were offered. Full text available on request.

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-11-23 17:02:21",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/395677_bhopal-update-11-23-11-media-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
395929,"Bhopal update - 08-03-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   Daily Pioneer reported the Bhopal District and Sessions court issued
   notices to the CBI and the eight former UCIL officials who were convicted
   in 2010 on criminal charges in the Bhopal gas accident. The notices were
   about the MP State's request to revise the sentences imposed on the men
   for stricter punishment. The State had also filed an appeal in the case.
   The next hearing on the sentence revision is set for August 20, while the
   appeal has been placed on hold.

   http://www.dailypioneer.com/358003/Gas-tragedy-Bhopal-district-court-issues-notice-to-CBI.html

   Coincidentally, the Indian journal Economic & Political Weekly published
   in its July 30 issue a 2+ page defense of the Supreme Court's rejecting
   the criminal case curative petition (aka Bhopal Criminal Curative). The
   writer is SC advocate Raghav Shankar. He argued the curative petition was
   the wrong legal vehicle for the CBI's effort and criticism of the SC
   decision \"is based on an inadequate understanding\" of India's judicial
   process. Shankar pointed out the MP Sessions court can indeed reframe the
   charge if there is \"new evidence...that speaks directly to the knowledge
   of [Keshub] Mahindra and others\" about the potential for harm due to
   management decisions. However, he concluded \"justice would probably be
   best served\" if the CBI withdrew its revision petition and pursued the
   appeal for enhanced punishment. The CBI has said the sentence should have
   been \"two years [imprisonment] per wrongful death caused, with sentences
   running consecutively.\" This would have resulted in sentences of up to
   10,000 years.

   Full text should be available here in pdf format: 
   http://epw.in/epw/uploads/articles/16357.pdf

   Alternate access:  http://epw.in

   Indian environmental magazine Down To Earth published a report on the
   chemical waste disposal issue, but only through about July 15. The article
   quoted both Satinath Sarangi and Rachna Dhingra, although neither referred
   to the activist-preferred remedy of Dow shipping the material out of the
   country for disposal. Sarangi criticized government agencies for not
   obtaining proper clearances for the process and Dhingra repeated her
   question about \"the other 27,000 tonnes of waste lying outside the factory
   that is contaminating the groundwater and the air.\"

   http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/bhopal-s-toxic-waste-raises-stink

   Business Standard published a staff-generated report on the GoI
   expenditures requests that PTI reported on Tuesday. The Bhopal
   compensation reference is brief.

   Not available online, the article appeared on p4 of the epaper edition.

   From activist resources:

   Colin Toogood posted on Twitter and Facebook a link to a Natural News
   article on a Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling that proprietors of organic
   farms may sue neighboring non-organic operations for \"trespass\" of
   drifting agricultural chemicals.

   http://www.naturalnews.com/033216_GMO_contamination_lawsuits.html

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-08-03 17:34:37",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/395929_bhopal-update-08-03-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
396300,"DOW CONFIDENTIAL: Bhopal Monitoring Report Friday, December 02, 2011
","Contact AIM for more Information                                                                                                                                         
Significant Activist Activity                                                                                                                                            
 India anniversary events: ICJB protests, rail roko; PAN People's Tribunal; Panel on nuclear laws                                                                        
 UK anniversary events: Scottish Parliament Motion, BMA events                                                                                                           
 US anniversary events: Boston Occupy rally, film screening; Austin \"die-in\"                                                                                             
 12/2 Amnesty UK: LOCOG should admit it \"made a mistake\" in awarding Dow the stadium wrap sponsorship                                                                    
 12/2 Greenpeace blog: Tell LOCOG to drop Dow, sign change.org petition                                                                                                  
 12/2 B. Gardiner post called for \"one final push\" for LOCOG \"to do the right thing\"                                                                                     
 Change.org petitions: more than 6,500 signatures for LOCOG; Indian athlete adresses IOA president                                                                       
Media                                                                                                                                                                    
 11/30 PTI: Jabbar, BPGMUS to protest at CM Chouhan's house                                                                                                              
 12/1 IBNS: Chingari Trust commemoration                                                                                                                                 
 12/1 ToI: Olympians, UK MP Navin Shah to lead Bhopal rally                                                                                                              
  Bhopal anniversary media summary: Dec. 1-2                                                                                                                             
 12/2 Global media: Bhopal anniversary protests - Coe, Malhotra, Olympic stadium effigies burned                                                                         
 12/2 AP: Lengthy review of Dow Olympics sponsorship controversy; Gardiner compared wrap to 'skin' of Bhopal victims                                                     
 12/2 India media: Gas NGO plans for 'rail roko' on Saturday                                                                                                             
 12/1-2 UK, India media: Gardiner on Activist/MP/Celebrity letter to LOCOG; \"legal challenge\" possible                                                                   
 12/1 Telegraph UK: Newham request to drop Dow denied by LOCOG                                                                                                           
 12/1 Down to Earth: GoI, CPCB report to MP HC approves of Bhopal factory waste disposal at DRDO site near Nagpur                                                        
 12/1 Telegraph India: Former Indian Olympians wrote to Sports minister Maken                                                                                            
 12/2 CNN-IBN: Dow affidavit filed with Indian SC on compensation issue                                                                                                  
 Local media: MDN; MLive pickups of AP articles                                                                                                                          
 11/30 Sportz Power: IOA meeting challenges - members traveling; boycott not called for by IOA members                                                                   
 12/2 Grist, Guardian blog: PAN PPT \"trial of pesticide companies\" seeks to find wider audience for information                                                          
 11/29 BBC radio: In-depth discussion of boycott possibility - Verma, Sarangi among guests                                                                               
Activist Activity                                                                                                                                                        
 Bhopali film screenings: London, MIT, NYC, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Madison; film also available for download                                                               
 PAN PPT session 12/3-6 will \"share the testimonies of...the trial's witnesses with a wider audience\"                                                                    
 12/1 London Assembly press release: questions previously submitted to LOCOG, London mayor                                                                               
 Blogs: UK sports writers criticize India boycott idea                                                                                                                   
 Social media: BMA, Twitter campaign for petition; US activist comments on Granholm's program                                                                            
 12/1 PR Green: No Pesticide Day observance in Puerto Rico                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                         
India anniversary events: ICJB protests, rail roko; PAN People's Tribunal; Panel on nuclear laws                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                         
ICJB events planned in Bhopal as indicated on the schedule it had issued at the beginning of the week:                                                                   
 - 12/1 at 1 p.m. - Burn effigy of Dow at Lily Talkies Crossing                                                                                                          
 - 12/2 - noon to 3 p.m. - Rally with \"replica of Olympic stadium\" and an effigy of Lord Coe \"as a mouthpiece of Dow Chemicals\" that are to be burned at the \"public     
meeting\" at the end of the rally. \"National Olympians M/s Ashok Dhyanchand, Jalaluddin Rizvi, Sameer Daad and a member of the London Assembly, Navin Shah will be part   
of this rally.\"                                                                                                                                                          
 - 12/3 Rail Roko - time/place to be determined                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/2-3 Separately, gas NGO BGPMUS led by Abdul Jabbar plans to hold a \"dharna\" protest outside MP Chief Minister Chouhan's residence.                                    
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/3-6 in Bangalore, Pesticide Action Network will hold its Permanent People's Tribunal \"trial\" of pesticide/agrichemical companies. See entry under Activist Activity   
for details.                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/3 in New Delhi at 2 p.m., the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament (CNDP) will hold a panel discussion on India's nuclear safety and civil liability legislation.        
Panelists will be ND Jayaprakash, Gopal Krishna, Achin Vanaik, Suvrat Raju, Prabir Purkayastha, and PK Sundaram. Admiral (ret.) L. Ramdas will chair the event. The      
location is Urdu Ghar, 212, Den Dayal Upadhyaya Marg, New Delhi.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
UK anniversary events: Scottish Parliament Motion, BMA events                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                         
A motion has been tabled in the Scottish Parliament on the occasion of the 27th Bhopal gas disaster anniversary. The motion, *S4M-01472, is credited to Joan McAlpine    
who is also a reporter for the Scotsman. The motion \"condemns\" Dow Chemical for a perceived \"poor human rights record\" and calls on Scottish MPs to support the Scottish 
Friends of Bhopal letter calling for LOCOG to review the Dow sponsorship deal. The letter is to be submitted to The Times. Full text of the motion is attached.          
                                                                                                                                                                         
BMA emailed its list of events for the anniversary, including:                                                                                                           
-     \"2 minutes of silence at the G20\" in a meeting chaired by UK MP Barry Gardiner at the Durban, South Africa conference. Gardiner also intended to make use of his   
time there to expand the network of supporters for the campaign against Dow's Olympic sponsorship.                                                                       
-     Scottish Friends of Bhopal \"memorial service\" (plaque dedication at Greyfriars Kirk in Edinburgh)                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
US anniversary events: Boston Occupy rally, film screening; Austin \"die-in\"                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                         
Only two Bhopal anniversary \"actions\" were announced in the U.S:                                                                                                         
Boston, MA                                                                                                                                                               
12/2 - noon to 1 p.m. An ICJB-Boston Bhopal anniversary presentation at the OccupyBoston campaign location in Dewey Square. Topic: \"the tragedy and how Bhopal's fight   
has also been emblematic of the struggles of the 99% against corporations.\"                                                                                              
       - 7 p.m Bhopali film screening at MIT with discussion by Max Carlson, Sanjay Verma and ICJB members.                                                              
Austin, TX                                                                                                                                                               
12/2 - 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Die-in at UT-Austin West Mall behind the fountain.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                         
Several creenings of the Bhopali film are scheduled for various locations around the US. through the upcoming week. Further details are provided in the Activist         
Activity section below.                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/2 Amnesty UK: LOCOG should admit it \"made a mistake\" in awarding Dow the stadium wrap sponsorship                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                         
Amnesty UK has issued a statement on the Bhopal anniversary and criticizing LOCOG for being \"irresponsible\" in saying it does not see Dow having any responsibility on   
the Bhopal issue.                                                                                                                                                        
Amnesty Int'l Business and Human Rights leader Seem Joshi said: \"LOCOG should publicly state that ongoing human rights concerns were not considered prior to the         
contract being given to the Dow Chemical Company and that they made a mistake.\"                                                                                          
Full text attached.                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/2 Greenpeace blog: Tell LOCOG to drop Dow, sign change.org petition                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                         
Greenpeace has posted a blog statement about the Bhopal anniversary, headlined \"Tell London Olympics Committee to Drop the Dow Chemical Company.\" The statement explains 
the accident process, followed by the allegation that Union Carbide \"has never taken full responsibility for the destruction it caused at Bhopal.\" The post also charges 
Dow with similar actions of \"downplaying.complicity for the disaster.\" It ends with an appeal for readers to sign the change.org petition addressed to LOCOG. Full text  
attached.                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/2 B. Gardiner post called for \"one final push\" for LOCOG \"to do the right thing\"                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                         
UK MP Barry Gardiner posted an item on the Labour party website titled \"We cannot allow London Olympics to add insult to injury for victims of Bhopal.\" He claimed       
leadership of the campaign against Dow's Olympic sponsorship and that \"we now need one final push to ensure LOCOG do the right thing, and to protect the international   
reputation of the London 2012 games.\"                                                                                                                                    
He asked readers to sign the Change.org petition and said \"We have teamed up with change.org\" on the petition, which is apparently why it was moved to the front of the  
change.org website as a \"featured\" petition and has jumped so quickly in signatures. Full text attached.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
Change.org petitions: more than 6,500 signatures for LOCOG; Indian athlete adresses IOA president                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                         
The Change.org petition (sometimes being called \"Lorraine's campaign\") addressed to Lord Coe asking for review of the Dow sponsorship has gained momentum, reaching a    
total of more than 6,500 signatures, compared to Wednesday afternoon when it had only 1,200 signatures. The goal is 10,000 signatures. Barry Gardiner claims to have     
\"teamed up\" with change.org, resulting in this petition being moved to the front of the activist/petition website, thus attracting more attention.                       
                                                                                                                                                                         
Another change.org petition was posted addressed to V K Malhotra, acting president of the Indian Olympic Association, and calling for \"Boycott Dow-lympics.\" The         
petition rationale combines Bhopal and Agent Orange issues in Vietnam as reasons for wanting India to boycott the Olympics.                                              
There are currently 26 signatures with a goal of 100. The petition is credited to Jalaluddin Rizvi, a 1984 Indian Olympic hockey player.                                 
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
11/30 PTI: Jabbar, BPGMUS to protest at CM Chouhan's house                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                         
PTI reported Abdul Jabbar \"threatened of holding a dharna\" on 12/2-3 at CM Chouhan's residence as an anniversary observance. Jabbar addressed the media, complaining the 
\"district court\" has \"a total lack of seriousness\" in hearing the case on enhancing the sentences in the Bhopal criminal case. He also said the GoI and MP state have    
not implemented the several projects or programs for the gas victims that have been announced \"in the last 18 months.\"                                                   
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_bhopal-gas-tragedy-organisation-accuses-centre-state-of-inaction_1619422                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/1 IBNS: Chingari Trust commemoration                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                         
-        IBNS reported Chingari Trust children, their parents, and clinic staff \"paid condolences\" to the Bhopal gas tragedy victims with a \"small peaceful candle march 
from Chingari rehabilitation centre to D.I.G. Bungalow Square, in the evening.\" The services offered by the trust were also described.                                   
http://www.washingtonbanglaradio.com/content/123774911-children-pay-homage-bhopal-victims                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/1 ToI: Olympians, UK MP Navin Shah to lead Bhopal rally                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                         
Times of India reported the former Olympians Ashok Dhyanchand, Jalaluddin Rizvi, Sameer Daad and others planned to lead the Bhopal anniversary rally from the Bharat     
Talkies to the former UCIL factory. UK MP Navin Shah \"said he was joined by the Labour Party's Friends of India and a cross-party coalition of MPs at the Olympic site\"  
to protest the Dow stadium wrap sponsorship.                                                                                                                             
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/Ex-Olympians-to-lead-rally-for-gas-survivors/articleshow/10947069.cms                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
Bhopal anniversary media summary: Dec. 1-2                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                         
Global media provided coverage of the Bhopal anniversary events beginning 12/1 with NGO press releases announcing the several anniversary rallies and activities in      
Bhopal, followed by reporting as each event occurred. Associated Press, UK Press Association, SkyNews, IANS and PTI issued wire stories that received considerable       
pickup.                                                                                                                                                                  
-        AP posted two items - an initial report of the 12/2 rally and effigy burnings, and a later in-depth report on the Olympic stadium sponsorship controversy. Each 
received 100+ pickups, especially across the US markets.                                                                                                                 
-       UKPA and SkyNews reports on the 12/2 events were seen across the UK and Canada, with approx. 50 pickups total.                                                   
-       IANS and PTI items were used mainly by Indian media outlets. These also reported on Barry Gardiner, Ken Livingston, sports figures and \"celebrities\" signing a   
letter to LOCOG calling for the stadium wrap deal to be cancelled.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/2 Global media: Bhopal anniversary protests - Coe, Malhotra, Olympic stadium effigies burned                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                         
A succession of wire articles reported on the Bhopal gas tragedy anniversary protests in Bhopal: First the UK's SkyNews, then the UK Press Association, then the AP.     
-   SkyNews gave a fairly high-level overview of the Olympics protest situation, simply stating \"protests are being held\" over the next few days during the anniversary  
period and the activists are \"angry\" about Dow's Olympic sponsorship deal. The IOA meeting and prior reports of voting to boycott are mentioned. The stadium wrap plan   
is described and the pressure being put on LOCOG, but no details or names of groups/individuals. Dow's position on Bhopal is briefly noted.                              
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/protests-over-olympic-deal-chemical-firm-095056665.html                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                         
-   UK Press Association reported more detail from the Bhopal rallies, noting \"more than 200\" took part in the march to the former UCIL factory site and burned effigies 
of Coe and Malhotra. MP CM Chouhan's letter to Sports minister Maken is mentioned, as is the letter to LOCOG from the 21 Indian athletes asking for Dow's sponsorship to 
be dropped. Dow's Bhopal position is briefly mentioned, as is the GoI \"seeking an additional 1.7 billion dollars for the victims from Union Carbide, and activists       
accuse Dow of not cleaning up contamination in Bhopal.\" Malhotra and LOCOG's most recent statement about not boycotting and not dropping the wrap sponsorship are        
included. The five Bhopal gas NGOs plan for the railway blockade on Saturday ends the piece. About 50 pickups mainly in UK local and regional media, as well as the      
Independent.                                                                                                                                                             
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/bhopal-survivors-burn-coe-effigy-2952674.html                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                         
-  AP issued a report very similar to the UKPA's, credited to reporter Rafiq Maqbool. This was seen in 100+ media outlets in the UK, Canada and US. Pickups of note      
include MLive.com, Washington Post, Washington Examiner, Toronto Star, San Francisco Chronicle, CBS News, ABC News, Salon.com, Huffington Post, Seattle                  
Post-Intelligencer, Seattle Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Miami Herald, Boston.com and SI.com.                                                                        
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2011/12/02/bhopal_survivors_protest_dows_olympic_sponsorship/                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                         
-   BBC issued a report on the protests with a slightly more local perspective, quoting Coe's statement on being \"satisfied\" that Dow is not responsible for the Bhopal  
issue. Ken Livingstone is mentioned as having made a statement \"earlier this week\" that \"urged a rethink on Dow Chemical's role.\" Malhotra's statement was included on   
the IOA not holding a boycott vote but \"the issue would be raised with the organizers.\"                                                                                  
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16001266                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                         
-  IANS issued a report from the protests, quoting UK MP Navin Shah and ICJB activist Rachna Dhingra. Shah called Dow's Olympic sponsorship deal \"disgusting,\" said the  
issue has been introduced in the London Assembly, and \"the Indian government should raise the issue with the Olympics Organizing Committee\" or face pressure from Indian 
leaders to do so. Dhingra said if the deal is not cancelled, the activists \"will hold a Bhopal Olympics to coincide with the event. Children with congenital             
disabilities caused due to the gas leak and Vietnamese children hurt by Dow's Agent Orange will perform at the Bhopal Olympics.\" Several pickups, mainly in Indian media 
outlets.                                                                                                                                                                 
Wall Street Journal's India RealTime blog linked to a post of IANS' previous report on the anniversary protest plans.                                                    
http://www.inewsone.com/2011/12/02/sebastian-coes-effigy-burnt-on-bhopal-gas-tragedys-27th-anniversary/94275                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                         
 - UK's Daily Mail posted a series of photos from the day's protests, showing the Coe, Malhotra and stadium effigies prior to and while being burned; an official photo  
of Coe; and images of the protesters.                                                                                                                                    
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2069167/Sebastian-Coe-effigy-burned-Bhopal-protesters-furious-chemical-firms-links-2012-London-Olympics.html                     
                                                                                                                                                                         
 - Daily Pioneer reported BJP state president and MP Prabhat Jha sympathized with the gas victims and said the government should do more for them.                       
http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/24937-bjp-fight-for-gas-tragedy-victims-will-continue-jha.html                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                         
 - Daily Pioneer reported separately Navin Shah said now he has begun a petition asking \"people from India and UK to create pressure on LOCOG to reconsider its          
position.\"                                                                                                                                                               
http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/25022-protestors-burn-olympic-games-partners-effigies.html                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/2 AP: Lengthy review of Dow Olympics sponsorship controversy; Gardiner compared wrap to 'skin' of Bhopal victims                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                         
A lengthy AP story by Danika Kirka and Ravi Nessman explored the controversy over Dow sponsoring the Olympic stadium wrap, describing the company's \"Top\" sponsor        
designation by the International Olympic Committee and the difficulties that status presents to Lord Coe's ability to back down from stadium sponsorship.                
The Bhopal, environmental, and human rights activist groups objections are described, as are Dow and UCC's positions regarding the Bhopal tragedy.                       
Comments of note include Scott Rosner, Wharton Sports Business Initiative, who discussed \"the risk of the association and the sponsorship backfiring\" and impacting the  
Games.                                                                                                                                                                   
Conversely, UK MP Barry Gardiner, Labour Party and head of Labour Friends of India, said the Bhopal people are offended to the point a stadium wrap produced by Dow      
\"might as well be the skin of the families that died [in the gas accident].\"                                                                                             
The article appeared under at least two titles: \"London Olympics under fire for Dow Chemical ties\" and \"London Olympics under fire for Dow Chemical ties.\"               
Current pickups are primarily U.S., including: Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, CBS News, ABC News, Seattle Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, SI.com, Denver     
Post, Newsday, ESPN, Huffington Post and NPR.                                                                                                                            
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/industries/big-sponsor-big-problem-dows-links-to-bhopal-disaster-reflect-on-2012-london-olympics/2011/12/02/gIQAtEJPLO_story.html 
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/2 India media: Gas NGO plans for 'rail roko' on Saturday                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                         
Indian media have reported further on the rail roko event planned for Saturday.                                                                                          
-   The Hindu reported Rachna Dhingra said the NGOs have been talking with the government for six months about changing the data used in the curative petition on        
compensation. The groups intend to keep the trains stopped until the GoI capitulates to their demand.                                                                    
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2681980.ece                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                         
-  Daily Pioneer reported details of locations where the blockades are likely to occur. Law enforcement is to be deployed. Activist Balkrishna Namdeo said the protests  
are to be non-violent, but they are willing to be arrested.                                                                                                              
http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/25028-voluntary-organisations-call-for-rail-roko-today.html                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/1-2 UK, India media: Gardiner on Activist/MP/Celebrity letter to LOCOG; \"legal challenge\" possible                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                         
Hindustan Times reported UK MP Barry Gardiner said the Labour Friends of India planned \"press events and meetings with legislators 'across the world'\" on the occasion   
of the Bhopal anniversary. Gardiner also said he will personally meet G20 political leaders in Durban, S. Africa on Saturday \"to raise concerns about 'Dow's failure to  
remediate the site at Bhopal and to take proper environmental and social corporate responsibility.'\"                                                                     
In London, Ken Livingstone is to \" launch a public petition of 'thousands of signatures' at the Olympic site at Stratford.\"                                              
http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/Athletics/British-MPs-want-Dow-ousted/Article1-776747.aspx                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                         
The Independent reported \"more than a hundred\" individuals and rights groups have called for LOCOG to cancel Dow's sponsorship deal. According to this brief article,    
Ken Livingstone has been joined by Noam Chomsky, Martin Sheen \"and a host of Indian Olympians and politicians\" in signing a letter requesting the sponsorship be         
reconsidered. While no link to the letter is offered, it appears to suggest this is a different letter than the ones previously reported.                                
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/leading-figures-demand-ban-on-olympic-sponsor-6271128.html                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                         
The Hindu reported on the letter to LOCOG signed by MPs, \"celebrities\" and others including Livingstone, Simon Hughes, MP Pritti Patel, Noam Chomsky, Martin Sheen,      
Indra Sinha and several Indian film and sports figures. Chomsky is quoted, describing the Bhopal gas victims as having \"every right to expect us to join them in their   
courageous efforts\" at enforcing accountability for \"one of the worst corporate crimes in history, and to gain some compensation for their suffering.\" Gardiner and      
Livingstone are also quoted on the rationale for asking LOCOG to reconsider Dow's sponsorship.                                                                           
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2681773.ece                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                         
The Hindu's Business Line expanded on the reporting on the above-mentioned letter, quoting Ken Livingstone, apparently from today's press conference in London:          
\"We will certainly be looking at the possibility of a legal challenge. If we can't afford a wrap for the stadium I'd rather not have one than have one contaminated by   
the death of 25,000 people.\"                                                                                                                                             
Coe's statement of confidence in Dow not having liabilities for the Bhopal gas leak, and a brief rendition of the history of the stadium wrap conclude the article.      
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/article2681580.ece?ref=wl_agri-biz                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/1 Telegraph UK: Newham request to drop Dow denied by LOCOG                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                         
Telegraph UK reported LOCOG rejected the anticpated request from Newham Borough's council to review Dow's sponsorship. Newham mayor Robin Wales said he is disappointed  
in the decision.                                                                                                                                                         
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/jmagnay1/100022044/london-2012-olympics-diary-locog-rejects-newhams-call-for-dow-chemical-sponsorship-review/                         
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/1 Down to Earth: GoI, CPCB report to MP HC approves of Bhopal factory waste disposal at DRDO site near Nagpur                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                         
Down to Earth, India's environment magazine, reported the GoI and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) submitted a report to the Jabalpur bench of the MP High Court   
on Nov. 22 and are still in favor of disposing of the chemical waste from the former UCIL plant site in Bhopal at the DRDO facility near Nagpur. This article claims the 
report \"ignores some vital facts,\" which are the Maharashtra PCB said the DRDO facility is not suitable for disposing of heavy metals, the DRDO facility has not been    
functional for the past two years, and the MPCB must conduct a hearing into the matter. Reportedly, no formal application has been made to the MPCB for such a hearing.  
The stay on transport of the chemical waste has been extended to Dec. 9, when the Maharashtra government is to reply in the Jabalpur court to the GoI report.            
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/environment-ministry-cpcb-endorse-burning-bhopals-toxic-waste-nagpur                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/1 Telegraph India: Former Indian Olympians wrote to Sports minister Maken                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                         
India's Telegraph reported the 21 ex-Olympians have each written to Sports minister Maken \"reminding him of the US giant's link with the tragedy.\" Maken has not         
responded to the Olympians or CM Chouhan's letters yet. The article reported Maken asked the cabinet secretariat for input and was referred to the Ministry for External 
Affairs. An unidentified sports ministry official said that agency can't ask Indian athletes not to participate in an international event, and \"It is for the government 
as a whole to decide whether it wants to oppose Dow's sponsorship.\"                                                                                                      
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1111201/jsp/nation/story_14822936.jsp                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/2 CNN-IBN: Dow affidavit filed with Indian SC on compensation issue                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                         
CNN-IBN reported Dow representatives filed an affidavit with the Indian Supreme Court saying the company will not pay more compensation for the Bhopal gas tragedy, the  
settlement was \"more than adequate and fair,\" it was 3 times more than required by Indian law, and UCC was not responsible for the daily operation of the UCIL plant as  
it was under Indian control. Few pickups so far.                                                                                                                         
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/dow-refuses-to-pay-more-to-bhopal-victims/208059-3.html                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
Local media: MDN; MLive pickups of AP articles                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                         
11/30 Midland Daily News print edition ran the AP article from Monday, located on page A3 at the top.                                                                    
12/2 MLive.com picked up both of the day's AP articles on the Bhopal anniversary protests and the Olympic stadium sponsorship.                                           
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
11/30 Sportz Power: IOA meeting challenges - members traveling; boycott not called for by IOA members                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                         
Indian sports media SportzPower published an article reporting the IOA meeting on 12/5 \"is not going to happen,\" partly because IOA secretary general Raja Randhir Singh 
will be traveling to Lausanne, Switzerland that day. Unidentified \"top sources\" also indicated none of the former Olympians who signed are IOA members, and that none of 
the active athletes \"have written anything\" about the Dow sponsorship.                                                                                                   
This article reported the IOC \"has been circulating\" a document with background on the Bhopal gas accident and subsequent activities of the Indian governments and UCC   
\"to place on the table the facts of the case against the detractors, who are linking Dow Chemical Company with Union Carbide Company.\"                                   
http://www.sportzpower.com/?q=content/dow-chemicals-issue-no-concern-ioa-has-no-issue-london-2012-0                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/2 Grist, Guardian blog: PAN PPT \"trial of pesticide companies\" seeks to find wider audience for information                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                         
The UK's Guardian environment blog reported on the PAN People's Tribunal \"trial of pesticide companies\" that begins in Bangalore on Saturday. The blog post focuses on   
bee colony collapse syndrome that is blamed on neonicotiniod pesticides.                                                                                                 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/dec/02/pesticides-bees?newsfeed=true                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                         
Grist.com posted an article on the PPT, saying \"Whether or not the trial will have any real impact on the these companies' bottom lines is hard to predict, but PAN is   
using the occasion to share the testimonies of several of the trial's witnesses with a wider audience.\"                                                                  
http://www.grist.org/industrial-agriculture/2011-11-30-pesticide-on-trial                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
11/29 BBC radio: In-depth discussion of boycott possibility - Verma, Sarangi among guests                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                         
BBC Asian Network radio program host Nihal entertained discussion of whether and why India should boycott the London Olympics over Dow's sponsorship of the stadium      
wrap. Telephone guests on the one-hour program were (in order of appearance) Bhopal activist Sanjay Verma, reporter Sangeeta (last name unclear), UK MP Rashnara Ali,    
Indian freelance sports writer Norris Pritham, BMA trustee/Sambhavna Clinic administrator Sathuy Sarangi, and call-in participant Priya.                                 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b017j3lg/Nihal_Boycotting_the_Olympics_for_political_reasons./                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
Bhopali film screenings: London, MIT, NYC, Pittsburgh, Toronto, Madison; film also available for download                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                         
Bhopali documentary film screenings are to take place around the Bhopal anniversary. ICJB activist Sanjay Verma is scheduled for at least two appearances screenings at  
MIT and in New York City.                                                                                                                                                
 Bhopali documentary director Max Carlson tweeted that the film is now available on demand from distributor IndiePix. The distributor's website indicates half of the    
proceeds go to the Bhopal Medical Appeal website Bhopal.org.                                                                                                             
Screenings:                                                                                                                                                              
-        11/30  Frontline Club in London, UK with \"special guest speaker Indra Sinha, award winning writer of Animal's People\"                                           
-        12/1  University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, by AID Pittsburgh                                                                                               
-        12/2  Bloor Street United Church of Canada, Toronto, as part of Amnesty International Film Festival, followed by a talk by Amnesty and ICJB US advisory board   
member Ellen Shifrin                                                                                                                                                     
-        12/3  MIT  followed by discussion with Sanjay Verma from Bhopal, filmmaker Max Carlson, and ICJB members                                                        
-        12/8  IndieScreen, Williamsburgh, New York City, \"followed by a Q&A with Sanjay Verma, activist & survivor of the 1984 Union Carbide Gas Disaster in Bhopal.    
50% of proceeds will go to Bhopal.org\" (AIM note: This had been previously scheduled for 12/1)                                                                           
-        12/10 screening and panel at Alwan for the Arts, NYC (an \"Arab community\" venue), \"followed by a serious panel discussion with survivor & activist Sanjay       
Verma, Director Max Carlson, AID NYC and many more TBA\"                                                                                                                  
-        University of Wisconsin - Madison's Indian Graduate Student Association (IGSA) is hosting a screening of the Bhopali film, but the date is unclear. The post    
reads \"December 6, Saturday,\" 7 p.m. at the Marquee Theatre, Union South, 1308 W. Dayton St.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
PAN PPT session 12/3-6 will \"share the testimonies of...the trial's witnesses with a wider audience\"                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                         
The Pesticide Action Network's Permanent People's Tribunal (PPT) scheduled for Dec. 3-6 will be held in Bangalore, India.                                                
 - \"Jurors\" are to include \"include renowned legal experts such as Gurdial Singh Nijjar, Director of the Centre of Excellence for Biodiversity Law at the University     
Malaya; Pananchand Jain, retired Rajasthan High Court Justice; and Upendra Baxi, former President of the Indian Society of International Law.[and] scientists and        
experts such as Dr. Ricarda A. Steinbrecher, a biologist and geneticist with the German Federation of Scientists.\"                                                       
 - The PPT website posted a schedule for livestreaming of the proceedings and when the main speakers will be on. Full text attached.                                     
                                                                                                                                                                         
PAN UK, PAN Asia Pacific (PAN AP) and PAN North America (PANNA) each posted several documents on the event with focus tailored to the respective regions, but do not     
specify allegations against Dow beyond the De-Nocil payments issue.                                                                                                      
-     The PAN UK press release includes several bulleted notes for editors on pesticide issues, so is being attached as a representative sample. All the documents are   
available on request.                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/1 London Assembly press release: questions previously submitted to LOCOG, London mayor                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                         
London Assembly member John Biggs issued a press release about his questioning of Coe, LOCOG CEO Deighton and London mayor Johnson about the appropriateness of the Dow  
sponsorship. Biggs stated his opposition to the sponsorship and included excerpts from transcripts of meetings on Oct. 19 and Nov. 16 when he posed his questions. Biggs 
is the Assembly member representing the constituency including Tower Hamlet, Newham, Barking & Dagenham and the City of London.                                          
http://www.london.gov.uk/media/press_releases_assembly_member/news-john-biggs-olympic-legacy-should-not-include-bhopal                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
Blogs: UK sports writers criticize India boycott idea                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                         
Two sports writer blogs have posts about the potential Indian boycott:                                                                                                   
-        Alan Hubbard of the Independent called the boycott rumor \"nothing but a storm in a teacup.\" He observed, \"In any case, boycotts don't work\" and cited the       
Moscow and Los Angeles boycotts, where \"some athletes may miss out on the bandwagon driven by politicians, but the Games show rolls on regardless.\" Hubbard tacitly      
discounted Tessa Jowell's protestations, pointing out \"all London 2012 board members must have known of, and surely, approved, the financial arrangements with Dow when  
it was made.\" (Hubbard's post has a few typographical errors that alter the meaning of some phrases, such as IOA president Malhotra \"has given assurances that there     
will be a boycott.\")                                                                                                                                                     
http://www.insidethegames.biz/blogs/15025-alan-hubbard-indian-olympic-boycott-rumours-were-nothing-but-a-storm-in-a-teacup                                               
                                                                                                                                                                         
-        John Goodbody of the Sunday Times described the boycott call as \"a flurry of mild concern.from the unlikely source of India.\" Goodbody quoted several of the    
parties involved in the conversation but drew no further conclusions.                                                                                                    
http://www.sportsfeatures.com/olympicsnews/story/49210/john-goodbody-the-spectre-of-boycotts-can-always-return-to-the-olympic-games                                      
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
Social media: BMA, Twitter campaign for petition; US activist comments on Granholm's program                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                         
BMA's Facebook and Twitter posts include                                                                                                                                 
 - Multiple links to prior media and activist items about the boycott discussion, DAS India's blacklisting, etc.                                                         
 - Link to a 9-minute YouTube video on the Bhopal gas tragedy. The video is not from a recognizable source, has few views.                                               
                                                                                                                                                                         
Anti-Dow Olympics Facebook page:                                                                                                                                         
 - Farah Edwards posted on the a link to BBC radio phone-in program \"Nihal\" (see media item above) about whether India should boycott the games. Edwards and Lorraine    
Close were upset about the \"patronizing\" treatment of the topic. Close asked if the Edwards (Tim and Farah) would support her if she wrote to the BBC about the program. 
-   Posts between Lorraine Close and photojournalist Jack Laurenson discussed promotion of her Change.org petition via Twitter as it surpassed 6,000 signatures.         
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/2 Twitter searches for Bhopal as a topic revealed a few hundred tweets, mainly with tie-in to the Olympic sponsorship controversy. Several individuals, including     
Laurenson and \"Debbie Aitken\" have sent messages to multiple recipients with the same request to support the campaign to drop Dow's sponsorship.                         
A few tweets of interest:                                                                                                                                                
-  Mischa Husain of BBC: \"Amnesty received a letter last week in which Lord Sebastian Coe dismissed #humanrights concerns about Dow.\"                                    
-  Greenpeace: \"27th anniversary of #Bhopal tragedy today yet #London2012 sponsors Dow Chemical still not held to account\"                                               
-   Jaqueline Magnay: \"Indians protesters respectful of seb coe. In burning him they dressed him in a suit. #bhopal\"                                                     
-    Weldon Kennedy: \"Lorraine telling the story of her experience in #Bhopal and her petition\"; \"Ken talking about crime of Dow sponsoring Olympics\" (these each had    
photos, see attached)                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/2 Climate change and water activist JanforGore (Janet Moore) has commented recently on Jennifer Granholm's new show on CurrentTV, with references to Granholm's brief 
stint on Dow's board and the Bhopal and dioxin issues. The latest comment is found here:                                                                                 
http://current.com/groups/current-video/93563579_granholm-i-dont-want-this-show-to-be-about-talking-points.htm                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
12/1 PR Green: No Pesticide Day observance in Puerto Rico                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                         
Puerto Rico Green media reported on World Day of No Pesticide Use as a Bhopal gas tragedy commemoration. On Dec. 3, the Organization Boricua Eco-Organic Agriculture in  
a \"brigade in the community of Hato Rey Nuns\" will plant a garden without pesticides and invited public participation. A subsequent \"brigdade\" is planned for Dec. 10    
December at the Jibaro Project in Bo.  Minillas in San German.                                                                                                           
Spanish language article: http://www.miprv.com/dia-mundial-del-no-uso-de-plaguicidas-recordando-el-desastre-en-bhopal/                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                       Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                         
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                  Allis Information Management, Inc..                                                                    

   Please remove me from this mailing list.

    
","2011-12-03 03:42:01",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/396300_dow-confidential-bhopal-monitoring-report-friday-december-02.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","mongoven@stratfor.com","attach/35/35360_Activist_info_12-01-11_PPT_livestreaming_schedule.pdf
attach/35/35362_Blog_12-02-11_Greenpeace_statement.pdf
attach/35/35364_Activist_info_12-02-11_Amnesty_Intl_statement.pdf
attach/35/35365_Activist_info_11-17-11_PAN_UK_-_PPT_full_press_release.pdf
attach/35/35366_Scottish_Parliament_Motion_S4M-01472.pdf"
396396,"Yes Men monitoring 10-20-11
","","2011-10-20 22:30:53",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/396396_yes-men-monitoring-10-20-11-.html","mmartin@allisinfo.com","","mkolleth@dow.com,sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com","attach/35/35382_Activist email 10-17-11 YL - BFFs.doc"
396510,"DOW CONFIDENTIAL: Bhopal Monitoring Report Friday, December 09, 2011
","Contact AIM for more Information                                                                                                                                                     
Significant Activist Activity                                                                                                                                                        
 Amnesty USA online action addressed to USOC; Amnesty Int'l; Amnesty Canada; AI USA blog post                                                                                        
 Barry Gardiner: website posts of Hindu, \"Dow Olympic campaign\" update                                                                                                               
 12/3 Rail Roko turns violent, protesters injured and arrested; CM Chouhan agreed to compensation data demand; roko cancelled                                                        
 Petition: Goal attained, extended to 15,000 signatures                                                                                                                              
 Parliament motions: 19 supporters of Scottish motion; UK Early Day stalled at 21                                                                                                    
Media                                                                                                                                                                                
 Local media: Midland Daily News, Saginaw News                                                                                                                                       
 US anniversary actions: ICJB Boston; AID Austin (TX)                                                                                                                                
 12/3 PTI, India Today, ToI: UCC affidavit filing; Dow not recognizing India's juridiction over it                                                                                   
 12/7 Telegraph UK: LOCOG sustainability report favorable to Dow                                                                                                                     
 12/8 BBC: Dow committed to Olympic sponsorship                                                                                                                                      
 Olympic Media Summary                                                                                                                                                               
 12/3 Hindu: Activist coalition, Chomsky statement                                                                                                                                   
 12/3 BBC: Video report from BMA/Livingstone press conference at Olympic stadium                                                                                                     
 12/3 Guardian Ecologist: Blog promotes L. Close petition                                                                                                                            
 12/4-5 Express, Hindu: Tamil Nadu politicians urge boycott of Games                                                                                                                 
 12/5-6 Financial Times, Channel 4: Jowell interviews on opposing Dow Olympics sponsorship                                                                                           
 12/5 Global media: IOA statement on \"concern\" over \"tainted\" company sponsoring Olympics                                                                                            
 12/6 India media: IOA concern includes India's future bid for Olympics while Dow stil an IOC partner                                                                                
 12/6 Global media: IOC to IOA - \"talk to the athletes\" about Dow sponsorship                                                                                                        
 12/8 Telegraph UK: Two reports from Deighton's presentation at IOC meeting                                                                                                          
 12/6 Guardian: Dhingra, Gardiner welcomed IOA 'concern'; Commentary article cites BMA's Close                                                                                       
 12/6 Tribune India: Sarangi - IOA, GoI communications \"token efforts\"                                                                                                               
 12/6 Siaset: Aslam Sher Khan press event: wrote letter to S Gandhi, offered support to UK MPs                                                                                       
 12/7 PTI, SportzPower: IOA to meet, discuss Dow sponsorship issues 12/9, 12/15                                                                                                      
 12/9 Guardian blog: Recap of Olympics news included London borough politcs involving anti-Dow campaign                                                                              
 12/8 Reuters, PTI: Indian athletes let Dow find \"redemption\" via Olympic sponsorship; will follow GoI lead on Dow issue                                                             
 12/8 Indian Express: ICJB to hold \"Bhopal Olympics\"                                                                                                                                 
 Commentaries/editorials: Mid-Day Mumbai, Times of India, Bhopal Chronicle; Sri Lanka, UK media                                                                                      
 Bhopal Anniversary Media Summary                                                                                                                                                    
 12/3 Global media: Bhopal anniversary effigy burnings and protests                                                                                                                  
 12/3 Global media: Rail roko violence                                                                                                                                               
 12/4 AP: Rail roko violence aftermath                                                                                                                                               
 12/4 TwoCircles: Rail roko protest overview; 1/3/12 deadline for MP to submit \"correct\" data to SC                                                                                  
 12/5 PTI, DNA: 15 Rail roko arrests include gas NGO leader Balkrishna Namdeo                                                                                                        
 12/6 Pioneer: State responsible for rail violence                                                                                                                                   
 12/6-8 India media: MP, ICJB, MP HRC to hold enquiries into violence                                                                                                                
 12/6 Pioneer: Jabbar - ICJB partly responsible for rail violence                                                                                                                    
 12/9 ANI: Bhopal protest of police for rail roko violence calls for Chouhan to resign, threatens to 'ransack' his residence                                                         
 12/8 ToI: Bhopal residents complain of police harassment on questioning over rail roko                                                                                              
 12/7 PTI: Abdul Jabbar wants special courts for gas victims, MP to submit 'correct' data to SC                                                                                      
 12/9 DNA: Chouhan calls for Rs 10 lakh in compensation for 10,000 more gas victims                                                                                                  
 12/4 Express on Sunday: Chingari Trust                                                                                                                                              
 12/5 Pioneer: Chingari Trust awards                                                                                                                                                 
 12/8 Common Dreams: PANNA announced results of People's Tribunal - \"Big 6\" agrichem firms \"guilty\" of human rights violations                                                       
Activist Activity                                                                                                                                                                    
 12/4 BhopalNow website: first posting promotes Sambhavna, Chingari facilities                                                                                                       
 12/6 Force Change petition addressed to Liveris to \"assume corporate responsibility\" and clean up Bhopal                                                                            
 Bhopali film: Invitations to screenings; review; interview with Verma and Carlson                                                                                                   
 Ted Jeory blog: Bhopal visit during anniversary events; Newham mayor supports anti-Dow campaign                                                                                     
 BMA website updates: Bhopali interview; Environmentalist article; Anniversary event reports                                                                                         
 Blogs: Current.com; Toxics Watch; Hadida; sports blogs; UK Progressive; New Internationalist                                                                                        
 Message boards: Nayaran - ICJB action calls during rail violence; Games Monitor posts                                                                                               
 Social media: Farah Edwards driving BMA social media                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Amnesty USA online action addressed to USOC; Amnesty Int'l; Amnesty Canada; AI USA blog post                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Amnesty USA posted an online action addressed to the US Olympic Committee on the Bhopal anniversary and asking it to \"raise the issue of Dow's failure to address the long-standing  
environmental and human rights concerns about the Bhopal gas disaster in the Association of National Olympic Committees Executive Council Meeting on 6 December in Switzerland.\"     
(emphasis added)                                                                                                                                                                     
The online letter also calls for the IOC to amend is Sustainable Sourcing Code to include \"an explicit attention to human rights concerns.\"                                          
Amnesty is seeking for itself \"and other groups the opportunity to convey to the Olympic Committee their concerns about Dow's response to the Bhopal tragedy, and that the LOCOG     
prioritize the outstanding needs of survivors of the tragedy.\"                                                                                                                       
Full text of the letter is attached.                                                                                                                                                 
 - The BMA Twitter feed posted links to the AI USA website, and tweeted once to Amnesty Sweden/Holland.                                                                              
 - As is typical, Amnesty USA has not invested in ongoing promotion of the Bhopal issue, touching on it only in context of the Bhopal anniversary and then returning to more normal  
Amnesty topics.                                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Amnesty Int'l posted the Bhopal annivesary press statement by Business and Human Rights director Seema Joshi that was initially posted by Amnesty UK on 12/2.                        
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/london-2012-organizers-must-not-forget-bhopal-disaster                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/5 Amnesty Canada website and Amnesty USA's Human Rights blog posted Bhopal items.                                                                                                 
- The Canada site began with a large photo on the front page of an elderly Bhopal activist and linked to the text of the UK Amnesty statement from 12/2, but no apparent link for a  
direct online action. It is also not listed in the Write for Rights campaign as a current issue.                                                                                     
 - The AI USA blog by Govind Acharya linked to the online action to contact the USOC and to Lorraine Close's change.org petition.                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Barry Gardiner: website posts of Hindu, \"Dow Olympic campaign\" update                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Barry Gardiner's website had the following updates:                                                                                                                                  
The 12/2 Hindu article with quotes from himself and Noam Chomsky opposing the Dow Olympic sponsorship                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
An update on the Dow Olympic Campaign said it \"is gathering momentum\" and Gardner has \"been busy campaigning with Labour Friends of India.\" He listed six action updates:            
- \"Events in 3 continents\" on the 27the Bhopal gas tragedy anniversary - UK, India and Africa                                                                                        
- GoI's instruction to the IOA to communicate with LOCOG and the IOC                                                                                                                 
- Gardiner \"raised the issue of the ongoing contamination at Bhopal to leading politicians from 18 of the G20 countries\" while at the Climate Change Conference in Durban, S. Africa 
- Navin Shah represented the Labour Friends group at the Bhopal events                                                                                                               
- \"Ken Livingstone attended a press conference organized by Labour Friends of India at the Olympic Stadium in Stratford. Ken officially endorsed our campaign at the change.org      
website.\"                                                                                                                                                                            
- \"On Friday released a letter to LOCOG signed by over a hundred celebrities, politicians and Olympians.\" The update indicated the list of supporters was provided, but no content   
was available.                                                                                                                                                                       
Gardiner ended by saying Coe \"must realize if he does not listen\" to the protesters, the protests \"will continue during the games themselves, and the sporting spectacle will be     
overshadowed by the toxic cloud of Dow.\"                                                                                                                                             
Full text attached.                                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/3 Rail Roko turns violent, protesters injured and arrested; CM Chouhan agreed to compensation data demand; roko cancelled                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The 12/3 Bhopal rail roko protest turned violent with injuries reported among the protesters, police and media persons. Reports vary on how the clash with police began.             
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Bhopal activists posted a flurry of emails and message board posts calling for telephone calls to PM Singh's office, the MP Chief Minister's office and the Environment and Forests  
ministry office.                                                                                                                                                                     
Subsequent posts reported MP CM Chouhan \"agreed on all demands of the survivor groups\" and a written statement was said to have been issued from Chouhan's office. As a result of    
Chouhan capitulating, the rail roko was called off. Details of the CM's statement were promised to follow.                                                                           
- An initial ICJB statement posted on its website reported the rail roko turned violent, but it did not mention the Chief Minister capitulating to the demands. That statement       
claimed:                                                                                                                                                                             
\"Police in riot gear with shields and \"lathis\", long heavy clubs, turned out in force and began to attack the survivors, sparing neither the old, women and children.                
\"Phone reports speak of people hit by stones and lathis covered in blood. One person is said to be critical in hospital. Many have been arrested. Bodies are lying on the ground in  
scenes reminiscent of the gas disaster of which today is the 27th anniversary. \" (emphasis added)                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                     
- A brief update to the post simply stated CM Chouhan agreed to the NGOs demands and to lobby the PM on their behalf.                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/4 ICJB's website was updated with a report on people injured at the rail protest, claiming a teen may lose his hand after being hit by a rubber bullet fired by police. The       
report claimed there were 50,000 at the protest, while media reports had said 15,000. A section said there is \"huge public anger at Dow and Coe\" over the Olympics sponsorship. Full 
text attached.                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The site also posted a new image titled \"Dow's poison is killing London's Olympics as Dow attempts to censor criticism.\" That linked to a post of the 12/2 AP story by Kirka and     
Nessman.                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Petition: Goal attained, extended to 15,000 signatures                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Lorraine Close's change.org petition has reached its initial goal of 10,000 signatures and the goal has been raised to 15,000.                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Parliament motions: 19 supporters of Scottish motion; UK Early Day stalled at 21                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The Scottish Parliament Motion by Joan McAlpine marking the Bhopal gas tragedy anniversary has been signed by 19 supporters: Rob Gibson, Mark McDonald, Dennis Robertson, Humza      
Yousaf, Mike MacKenzie, David Torrance, John Mason, Sandra White, Annabelle Ewing, Adam Ingram, Patrick Harvie, Gil Paterson, Dave Thompson, Kenneth Gibson, Roderick Campbell, Bill 
Kidd, Christina McKelvie, Margaret Burgess, and Linda Fabiani.                                                                                                                       
 - This is the fourth such SPM, with others filed for the 19th, 20th and 22 anniversaries, and one in support of US activist Diane Wilson when she was arrested for trespassing at   
UCC's Seadrift, TX plant. The several motions are attached.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The UK Early Day Motion by Keith Vaz calling for LOCOG to reconsider the Dow sponsorship deal has not gained any new signers and remains at 21.                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Local media: Midland Daily News, Saginaw News                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/3 Midland Daily News ran Friday's AP article by Kirka and Nessman, pp1-2. Bottom left of front page, across fold of second page                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/6 Saginaw News reporter Kathryn Lynch-Morin posted an article on the Bhopal activist opposition to Dow's Olympic sponsorship. She tied together media reports on the              
effigy-burning and protest in Bhopal for the anniversary observances, and today's Reuters report on the IOC advising the IOA to talk with the Indian athletes about the sponsorship. 
The article ended with four paragraphs quoting Scot on Dow's Olympic partnership, and Lynch-Morin inviting public input on whether the activists are right to blame Dow, and whether 
a boycott would \"send a message to Dow or hurt Indian sports.\"                                                                                                                       
Seven comments were posted by eaders. The majority of the comments were in Dow's defense, the others, posted by \"greenspleen\" are more sympathetic to the activist viewpoint.        
http://www.mlive.com/business/mid-michigan/index.ssf/2011/12/bhopal_victims_continue_to_pro.html#comments                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
US anniversary actions: ICJB Boston; AID Austin (TX)                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/5 The UT-Austin Daily Texan reported on AID Austin's Bhopal anniversary die-in and campaign opposing Dow's Olympic sponsorship. The group was collecting signatures on a petition 
they hope to use to spur \"current and former UT Olympians\" to make statements opposing the sponsorship.                                                                              
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2011/12/04/aid-austin-seeks-support-removing-dow-chemicals-olympic-sponsorship                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/7 India New England published a report from the ICJB Boston anniversary events of 12/3 titled \"Bhopal Occupies Boston.\"                                                           
About 40 people attended the ICJB presentation by activist Saif Pathan at noon in Dewey Square. The messages reported were - Dow is avoiding responsibility for remediation of       
former UCIL factory site and compensation to gas accident victims, and greenwashing its image with the London 2012 Olympics sponsorship.                                             
Following that event, the group \"marched\" to Copley Square and joined a larger Occupy demonstration, where they displayed Bhopal banners, distributed flyers among the crowd, and    
\"talked to people about the struggle for survivors' rights.\"                                                                                                                         
The Bhopali film screening at MIT had a \"packed audience of about 70 people.\" Following the film, Bhopal resident and activist Sanjay Verma told the audience \"the international     
support for the cause was increasing every year,\" and encouraged people to sign Lorraine Close's petition opposing the Olympic sponsorship.                                          
http://www.indianewengland.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=556EEDBF136748DD915A1C88429E58B7 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/3 PTI, India Today, ToI: UCC affidavit filing; Dow not recognizing India's juridiction over it                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                     
PTI reported on the UCC affidavit filed with the Indian Supreme Court rebutting the curative petition calling for more compensation to be paid for the Bhopal gas victims. Pickups   
have been seen by Economic Times, Indian Express and DNA.                                                                                                                            
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_dow-chemicals-opposes-higher-compensation-for-bhopal-gas-victims_1620981                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                     
India Today also reported on the filing, with a few details of interest. The document is said to include assertions that a large surplus of funds remained with the GoI after the    
gas victims were paid, and that the GoI should return the initial settlement amount to UCC if it reopened the settlement case. Also, the article reported UCC said the GoI needed to 
provided proof of the earning capacity of the gas victims for the purposes of calculating compensation.                                                                              
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/bhopal-gas-tragedy-compensation-union-carbide-vs-government/1/162583.html                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Times of India posted a report on the UCC affidavit filing on the curative petition. It included a few quotes from the document, including that Dow \"has not submittted to the       
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other court in India.\"                                                                                                                      
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Bhopal-gas-tragedy-Wont-submit-to-Supreme-Court-jurisdiction-says-Dow-Chemicals/articleshow/10974484.cms                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/7 Telegraph UK: LOCOG sustainability report favorable to Dow                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                     
UK Telegraph's Jacquelin Magnay included new sustainability review information in a report on Rogge's direction to the IOA to talk about Dow's sponsorship with the Indian athletes. 
IOA acting president Malhotra said discussion about Dow will be on the agenda for the IOA executive board meeting on Dec. 15 as the issue \"has become a global concern.\"             
Dow's position on Bhopal was given, followed by two paragraphs reporting \"LOCOG sustainability watchdog Shaun McCarthy supported [Dow's] position.\"                                  
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/jacquelin-magnay/8939596/London-2012-Olympics-Jacques-Rogge-backs-chemical-giant-Dow-over-Bhopal-disaster.html                           
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/8 BBC: Dow committed to Olympic sponsorship                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                     
BBC reported on Dow's stated commitment to remain as a sponsor for the London 2012 Olympic Games. The article included a timeline of events involving Dow  in India and development  
of the London Games.                                                                                                                                                                 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16089139                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Olympic Media Summary                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Media coverage of the anti-Dow Olympics campaign began slowly, with single reports on activist statements in the Hindu (Chomsky, Gardiner); Guardian's Ecologist blog (L. Close      
petition); Express News (Tamil Nadu politicians Vaiko and Thirumavalavan); and Financial Times (Jowell).                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                     
GOI/Indian Olympic Association's (IOA) statement  it would communicate with IOC over concerns about Dow's sponsorship received global media attention with reports from AP, AFP,     
Reuters, and Indian wire services IANS, UNI, ANI, IBNS, and PTI.                                                                                                                     
- AP usage was highest in US and Canada (about 50 pickups)                                                                                                                           
- AFP, Reuters were mainly used internationally (about 25 to 35 each)                                                                                                                
- PTI appeared most used in India, while the rest of Indian wires appeared about evenly split                                                                                        
- Int'l Business Times, First Post issued original reports                                                                                                                           
- WSJ India RealTime blog posted Indian wire links twice                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                     
IOC statement confirming Dow's suitability and counseling IOA to talk with India's athletes received coverage by Reuters, Int'l Business Times, Guardian, PTI, and India's media     
majors. Reuters was used by New York Times, Yahoo! News, some US broadcast outlets, and filtered through international and sports media over two days. Indian media coverage was     
widespread, including numerous PTI pickups, Times of India (TOI), Hindu, Economic Times, SportzPower and the Statesman.                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                     
PTI reported IOA to meet 12/9, 12/17 to discuss \"Dow issues.\" Multiple pickups throughout Indian media.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Print editions of India's major media published articles Sunday through Thursday on these stories, mainly in the Sports sections.                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Commentary appeared from many quarters                                                                                                                                               
- Hindustan Times - editorial said Dow should use sponsorship money to \"clean up poisons\"                                                                                            
- Mid-Day Mumbai - hypocrisy of India protesting Dow Olympic sponsorship while letting the company operate in India                                                                  
- SportzPower - suggested is GOI using stalling tactic on Olympic protests in hopes momentum will slow                                                                               
- TOI - point/counterpoint editorials on Dow sponsorship and Indian boycott; questioning why India did not protest sponsorship in 2010                                               
- Central Chronicle - Rizvi's change.org petition surpassing 750 signatures puts \"significant pressure\" on IOA for 12/15 meeting                                                     
- Sri Lanka Guardian - Dow risking reputation and good will over Olympic sponsorship                                                                                                 
- North West Times (London)- criticized Coe for Dow sponsorship, encouraged readers to email UK Culture commission in protest                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Individual articles reported responses from multiple stakeholders:                                                                                                                   
- Tribune India: ICJB leaders Sarangi, Dhingra, Sarangi called the IOA message to IOC a \"token effort\"; Dhingra promised a \"Bhopal Olympics\"                                         
- Siaset: Aslam Sher Khan called for an Olympic boycott, promised to bring up Dow sponsorship \"in a big way\" at 12/15 IOA meeting                                                    
- Reuters, PTI -  Current top Indian athletes are either against a boycott or noncommittal when asked                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/3 Hindu: Activist coalition, Chomsky statement                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 - The Hindu published an article about the cross-party activist coalition targeting Dow with quotes from Noam Chomsky 'backing' the campaign against Dow's Olympic sponsorship      
because \"the people of Bhopal have struggled to enforce accountability for one of the worst coporate crimes in history.\"                                                             
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-international/article2682675.ece                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/3 BBC: Video report from BMA/Livingstone press conference at Olympic stadium                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 BBC posted a video report was from the BMA's press conference held 12/2 outside the Olympic stadium. Activist representatives addressing the press were Lorraine Close, Tim Edwards 
and Farah Edwards. Ken Livingstone was not on camera. The reporter said of the stadium sponsorship, \"it looks like the campaigners aren't going to get their way\" although it does   
present problems for LOCOG. Lorraine Close described in a fairly passionless manner the issues facing the Bhopal gas victims and the rationale for involving Dow in the issues.      
Farah Edwards asserted the gas victims may go on a hunger strike nearer or during the Olympics \"if the wrap stays.\" Close's change.org petition was briefly shown on screen.         
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16011649                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/3 Guardian Ecologist: Blog promotes L. Close petition                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The UK Guardian's Ecologist blog promoted Lorraine Close's change.org petition to Lord Coe opposing the Dow stadium wrap sponsorship.                                                
http://www.theecologist.org/how_to_make_a_difference/campaigning_the_basics/1154320/petition_to_stop_dow_chemical_partnering_with_2012_london_olympics.html                          
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/4-5 Express, Hindu: Tamil Nadu politicians urge boycott of Games                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Express News Service reported two Tamil Nadu politicians, MDMK leader Vaiko and VCK leader Thol Thirumavalavan, told the media India should boycott the Olympics unless Dow's        
sponsorship is cancelled.                                                                                                                                                            
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/boycott-dowsponsored-london-olympics-vaiko/208474-60-118.html                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The HIndu also reported Vaiko and Tirumavalavan appealing to the IOA and GoI to pressure LOCOG to drop the Dow sponsorship deal.                                                     
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2687974.ece                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/5-6 Financial Times, Channel 4: Jowell interviews on opposing Dow Olympics sponsorship                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Financial Times reported on Tessa Jowell's involvement in the campaign opposing Dow's Olympic sponsorship. She said she considers the sponsorship deal \"provocative\" and that she    
would never do anything to \"inflict damage on the Games.\" The article described the opposition campaign as attracting \"little interest in India outside of Bhopal\" and said Jowell   
was not successful in meeting with Indian officials last week to discuss the sponsorship. She denied a conflict of interest exists between her LOCOG board membership and the        
opposition campaign. She said she is \"seeking a 'negotiated solution'\" with two possible solutions - Dow withdraws or \"offers what she called a 'substantial programme of            
mitigation.'\"                                                                                                                                                                        
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b1149dd8-1eb3-11e1-bae4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1fd1TIYz8                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Channel 4 News posted a brief article and video report on India protesting Dow's Olympic sponsorship. The text article contained the basic items about the IOA, LOCOG and Dow        
statements, while the video included an approximately 4-minute interview of Tessa Jowell by Channel 4 news reader Jon Snow. Snow asked if Jowell had \"seen this problem coming,\" to  
which she replied by describing events of her trip to India last week. Jowell was to have spoken at a sports conference which was cancelled, and she thought this was because the    
GoI was afraid she would use that platform to talk about Bhopal and Dow. She said she would not have done so.                                                                        
Jowell said she met with \"a number of people who are concerned, including the senior counsel for the Indian government on the Indian Olympic Association issue and the five NGOs.\"   
Snow prompted her about the original question, and Jowell began to list \"options,\" including that Dow could withdraw since the wrap was only to \"enhance the appearance of the       
stadium for television.\" On further prompting, she admitted she did not know about the sponsorship until September and had \"been pursuing it ever since.\"                            
http://www.channel4.com/news/indian-government-protests-dow-olympic-sponsorship                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/5 Global media: IOA statement on \"concern\" over \"tainted\" company sponsoring Olympics                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                     
AP, AFP, Reuters, IANS, UNI and IBNS issued wire reports related to the Indian Olympic Association statement about Dow's Olympic sponsorship.                                        
 - AP and UNI reported the IOA would communicate to LOCOG the Bhopal gas victims are \"strongly protesting\" Dow's sponsorship of the stadium wrap. Dow's position on the Bhopal issue 
and the purchase of UCC were given in the second paragraph of the report. IOA said it was not happy that \"tainted\" sponsors were being associated with the Games. IOA acting         
president V K Malhotra said the topic would be addressed at a 12/15 meeting.                                                                                                         
AP http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Indian-Olympic-group-unhappy-over-Dow-sponsorship-2344972.php                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 - AP had approximately 50 pickups, mostly in US and Canadian local, regional and broadcast outlets, as well as Washington Post, Washington Examiner, SF Examiner and New Orleans    
Times-Picayune websites.                                                                                                                                                             
 - AFP, Reuters and IANs pickups were between two and three dozen each.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Several media outlets posted in-house reports on the IOA's instructions and intent to convey to LOCOG and/or the IOC that the GoI, NGOs and others are \"unhappy\" with Dow's Olympic  
sponsorship. WSJ's IndiaRealTime blog included the Indian Express version of the story at the top of its daily headlines collection. The content was much the same as reported       
above.                                                                                                                                                                               
 - PTI http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/India-to-raise-issue-of-Dow-Olympics-sponsorship/Article1-778111.aspx                                                       
 - International Business Times http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/261171/20111205/2012-london-olympics-india-raise-issue-dow.htm                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 - IANS reported more detail from Malhotra's statement, saying IOA \"[understands] the feelings of the players, government and the NGOs [and] will try to make the games organisers   
aware of the feeling of the people who have suffered in that tragedy. It is not only the Indians who are protesting this sponsorship, there has been an outcry against this world    
over from various NGO's and other bodies. It is no longer a local issue.'\"                                                                                                           
This article said the GoI asked the IOA to address the issue with LOCOG and \"ask them to reconsider their move.\"                                                                     
http://in.news.yahoo.com/ioa-convey-concern-bhopal-victims-london-organisers-124750787.html                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 - AFP Reuters, and IANS went a step further into the GoI/IOA communications, reporting the Sports Ministry asked the IOA to \"raise this matter immediately with the IOC (emphasis   
added) while keeping the [GoI] informed.\"                                                                                                                                            
Sports minister A J Maken wrote to the IOA, \"expressing his concern over the Dow issue that has been vehemently criticized by the Bhopal Gas leak victims and even by several former 
Olympians.\"                                                                                                                                                                          
Reuters http://in.news.yahoo.com/india-raise-issue-dow-olympics-sponsorship-073535293.html (picked up by The Guardian)                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 - PTI and ANI also provided more coverage of the GoI's instructing the IOA to communicate with Olympics officials about the Dow sponsorship. In a first article, PTI quoted         
extensively from an emailed statement from Dow that, \"misrepresentation of facts is wrong,\" while a second article quoted extensively from Sports minister Maken's statement. He     
called it \"insensitive to the Bhopal gas victims\" for the IOC to move ahead with the sponsorship.                                                                                    
PTI1: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_misrepresentation-of-facts-is-wrong-dow-chemical_1621872                                                                                  
PTI2: http://www.rediff.com/sports/report/insensitive-bhopal-gas-victims-maken-ioc-dow-chemicals-union-carbide/20111205.htm                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 - ANI reported Sarangi commented favorably about the GoI's move, but said \"much more\" still needed to be done in terms of political consensus to maintain the campaign's momentum.  
http://www.dailyindia.com/show/474535.php                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/6 India media: IOA concern includes India's future bid for Olympics while Dow stil an IOC partner                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Several Indian media outlets published further reporting on the IOA's statement on Monday to the IOC and LOCOG:                                                                      
 - Telegraph India reported part of the concern over Dow's sponsorship is its position as an IOC partner through the 2020 Games, for which India had planned to bid. It also         
reported the letter to IOA from the Sports ministry was written by Rahul Bhatnagar, a joint secretary at the ministry.                                                               
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1111206/jsp/nation/story_14844874.jsp                                                                                                                  
 - The Hindu and NDTV also reported India would like to bid to host a future Games, and has asked the \"Indian mission in London to get more details from the organizers\" about Dow's 
sponsorship. Hindu noted Liveris is an India-US CEO Forum member, \"but has stayed away from the meetings...due to the sensitivities involved.\"                                       
Hindu http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2689249.ece                                                                                                                       
 - Times of India and PTI reported Sports Minister A J Maken urged the IOC to \"consider the sentiments\" involving Bhopal and Dow, said he \"won't let Bhopal down,\" and that it       
\"would be embarrassing that on one hand we are asking for extradition of [Warren Anderons] and on the other hand we are partnering with those people.\"                               
ToI http://www.timesnow.tv/Wont-let-Bhopal-down-says-Maken/articleshow/4390681.cms                                                                                                   
- Express News Service, SportzPower, Economic Times and the Statesman also posted reports on the IOA statement.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/6 Global media: IOC to IOA - \"talk to the athletes\" about Dow sponsorship                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Reuters and a few other media outlets reported IOC president Jacques Rogge \"urged the IOA to talk to its athletes\" about the protests over Dow's Olympic sponsorship. He reiterated  
the IOC's position that Bhopal was a \"horrific catastrophe\" with which India has \"a lot of emotion,\" but Dow \"was not involved in the Bhopal issue.\" He added that every call for    
India to boycott the games \"is a measure that is hurting Indian sport and I am glad to say that there is no intention at the level of the IOA to consider such actions.\"             
This Bhopal content is in the second half of the article, which is titled and initially about soccer (football) global leader Havelange resigning from the IOC.                      
There were approximately two dozen pickups of the story, including the New York Times, Yahoo! Eurosport, South Africa's Sunday Tribune and Independent Online, and a handful of US   
broadcast outlets.                                                                                                                                                                   
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2011/12/06/sports/olympics/sports-us-olympics-rogge.html?_r=1&hp                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                     
International Business Times also reported on the meeting, with an article specifically on instructing the IOA to talk with the Indian athletes and that boycotting would \"hurt      
Indian sport.\"                                                                                                                                                                       
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/262133/20111206/boycotting-london-olympics-2012-hurt-indian-sport.htm                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/8 Telegraph UK: Two reports from Deighton's presentation at IOC meeting                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The UK Telegraph published two items by Jacqueline Magnay mentioning Dow's sponsorship and Bhopal:                                                                                   
 - The first was a report on the IOC's decision add Ireland to the Olympic torch relay route. This contained a brief mention of Dow as part of LOCOG's presentation to the IOC this  
week.                                                                                                                                                                                
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/8944065/London-2012-Olympics-torch-relay-to-visit-Ireland.html                                                                             
 - The second reported the IOC heard from LOCOG CEO Paul Deighton to expect opposition to Dow's sponsorship to be ongoing. Ken Livingstone's interest in the issue, the Coe effigy   
burning, IOA being pressured on the topic and today's statement by Indian athlete Gagan Narang are also noted.                                                                       
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/8944225/London-2012-Olympics-International-Olympic-Committee-braced-for-Dow-protests.html                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/9 UK Telegraph's Olympics diary blog included a summary of Thursday's blog post reporting LOCOG CEO Deighton told the IOC continued protest over Dow's sponsorship is expected.   
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/shart/100022330/london-2012-olympics-diary-mcdonalds-fails-to-get-staff-into-games-spirit/                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/6 Guardian: Dhingra, Gardiner welcomed IOA 'concern'; Commentary article cites BMA's Close                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The UK's Guardian reported both Rachna Dhingra and Barry Gardiner made statements about the IOA's message to the IOC. Dhingra said the NGOs asked for that action six months ago,    
and \"welcome it, but it needs to go further.\" Gardiner said the GoI and IOA \"have done the right thing by standing up to Dow's involvement.... LOCOG must realize that this issue    
will not go away, and the longer they leave the decision to kick out Dow the larger the protests will grow.\"                                                                         
No online article, full text available on request.                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The Guardian also published a commentary by Richard Williams criticizing the stadium wrap, Dow's sponsorship and quoting BMA activist Lorraine Close in describing contaminated      
water and surroundings in Bhopal. Readers are encouraged to sign Close's change.org petition asking Lord Coe to drop Dow's sponsorship.                                              
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/dec/05/london-olympics-dow-bhopal-legacy?newsfeed=true                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/6 Tribune India: Sarangi - IOA, GoI communications \"token efforts\"                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Tribune India posted a lengthy article on the IOA's communication to IOC. Sarangi is cited, saying government effort is a \"token exchange of words and gestures\" and the GoI \"should 
categorically state that it will make no compromise on the matter of a corporation which is responsible for the poisoning and death of thousands of people.\"                         
The article ends with a section labeled \"The Dow Story,\" relating that UCC was an early investor in India, UCIL ownership of the Bhopal facility, and \"After the accident, UCC       
downplayed damages and diverted attention and liability on the local company to escape criminal and civil liability. Later, it absolved itself completely of all responsibility by   
merging with the $9.3-billion Dow Chemical, one of the world's largest chemical companies.\"                                                                                          
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20111206/main7.htm                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/6 Siaset: Aslam Sher Khan press event: wrote letter to S Gandhi, offered support to UK MPs                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                     
India's Siaset Daily posted a lengthy article by Pervez Bari about Aslam Sher Khan making statements to the press about writing to Sonia Gandhi, Barry Gardiner, Keith Vaz and Tessa 
Jowell about the Dow sponsorship. The letter to Gandhi, which was copied to \"all the members of the Congress Working Committee,\" called for IOA to make a formal protest to LOCOG.   
To the British MPs, Sher Khan offered his support and had a reply from Vaz. He called for Indian MPs to \"take up the issue,\" as have the UK MPs, and claimed he would \"not hesitate  
to don the (anti-corruption) role of Anna Hazare in getting proper justice to the victims and survivors..\" He also said he will bring up the Bhopal issue \"in a big way at the       
former Olympians meeting\" as part of the 12/15 IOA meeting.                                                                                                                          
 - PTI, ToI and UNI also reported more briefly from Sher Khan's press event.                                                                                                         
http://www.siasat.com/english/news/ex-olympian-aslam-sher-writes-sonia-dow-chemical-sponsorship-london-olympics                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/7 PTI, SportzPower: IOA to meet, discuss Dow sponsorship issues 12/9, 12/15                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                     
PTI reported the IOA will meet on 12/9  to discuss the issues regarding Dow's Olympic sponsorship, according to IOA vice-president Tarlochan Singh. The article also noted the       
executive board and general body meeting will take place December 15, as widely reported. Tarlochan said, \"The matter has to be thoroughly discussed, we can't take a decision on    
our own. The sentiments of the people of Bhopal are also important.\" The article was picked up by multiple India outlets, including Economic Times, Times of India, IBNLive, India   
Today and Zee News.                                                                                                                                                                  
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/ioa-calls-meeting-to-discuss-dow-olympic-sponsorship-row/articleshow/11019537.cms                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
SportzPower confirmed the 12/9 meeting reported by PTI . SportzPower said the IOA \"has gone on a back foot\" as its secretary general Raja Randhir Singh is in Switzerland meeting    
with the IOC, and acting president V K Malhotra \"remaining silent,\" so vice president Tarlochan Singh has apparently taken the lead on the \"crisis.\" The article described the       
week's developments from Indian agencies and the IOC, and ended with \"Last learnt, the IOA will stick to its position on Indian participating in London Games, but the athletes in   
the committee, many of whom are from Bhopal, will not accept that.\"                                                                                                                  
http://www.sportzpower.com/?q=content/ioa-pushing-participating-london-games-athletes-commoners-oppose                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/9 Guardian blog: Recap of Olympics news included London borough politcs involving anti-Dow campaign                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                     
A Guardian blog post by Dave Hill recapped the GoI/IOA communication to IOC, and its response. He referred back to the 12/2 activist coalition press conference at the Olympic       
stadium and noted BMA said Dow is \"shifting\" responsibility for Bhopal to the Indian governments. Hill also quoted Ken Livingstone from the press conference saying if he is elected 
Mayor of London next May, \"he would be 'looking for a legal challenge to try and drop Dow Chemical' and in the meantime would be 'writing personally to Seb Coe to say I think this  
is a catastrophic error and it isn't going to go away.'\"                                                                                                                             
Hill mentioned the Newham council's support of the anti-Dow campaign, and that Tower Hamlets mayor Lutfur Rahman is also in favor of the campaign.  He referred readers to Ted       
Jeory's latest blog post about Rahman's support.                                                                                                                                     
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2011/dec/08/dow-olympic-stadium-wrap-cross-party-opposition                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/8 Reuters, PTI: Indian athletes let Dow find \"redemption\" via Olympic sponsorship; will follow GoI lead on Dow issue                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Reuters reported India's first athlete to qualify for the London Olympics, marksman Gagan Narang, said Dow's Olympics sponsorship is an opportunity for the company to gain          
\"redemption\" and should be allowed. He agreed with IOC president Rogge that a boycott would only hurt the Indian athletes, and stated the athletes are to go to the Games as         
ambassadors for their country.                                                                                                                                                       
Pickups were not extensive, mainly Reuters and Yahoo! outlets.                                                                                                                       
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/08/olympics-india-boycott-idUSL3E7N83LW20111208                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                     
PTI reported Indian tennis player Sania Mirza said she would follow the government's instructions on the issue of a boycott: \"As athletes we will go with what the country decides.\" 
Multiple pickups                                                                                                                                                                     
http://sports.in.msn.com/tennis/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5648177                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The UK Press Association posted a report on UK female cyclist Emma Pooley on her involvement in an Afghan human rights campaign. She was asked about \"the controversy surrounding    
Dow Chemical Company's involvement with London's showpiece Olympic stadium,\" and answered \"generally\" about \"almost all\" large multinational companies having \"a breach of ethics    
somewhere.\" The article then gave a description of the controversy issues. The piece was reposted on the Financial Mail's Women's Forum.                                             
http://www.fmwf.com/features/2011/12/olympic-athlete-calls-for-womens-rights-in-afghanistan/                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/8 Indian Express: ICJB to hold \"Bhopal Olympics\"                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Indian Express reported Rachna Dhingra stated the ICJB would do everything it could to hold a \"Bhopal Olympics\" with children from Bhopal, Vietnam, Nicaragua \"and other countries.\" 
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Bhopal-may-defy-IOC-with-own--Olympics-/885241/                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Commentaries/editorials: Mid-Day Mumbai, Times of India, Bhopal Chronicle; Sri Lanka, UK media                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/4 Deccan Herald has posted an editorial titled \"Dow's stink,\" calling LOCOG's sponsorship award \"insenstive and in poor taste.\" A boycott by India is considered an option, but   
unfair to Indian athletes.                                                                                                                                                           
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/209367/dows-stink.html                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/7 Mid-Day Mumbai published a strong commentary by Ranjona Banerji on the GoI and Indian public's \"hypocrisy\" over the Bhopal gas tragedy. Banerji asked why Dow's Olympic         
sponsorship is \"so unbearable\" when Dow's presence in India is not, and cites the Jaipur foot camps and Habitat for Humanity. Banerji blamed the government and \"unconvincing\"       
politicians for not doing enough for the gas victims, and asked successive questions about why the victims have not received enough compensation, who is responsible for it, and     
suggested using \"bribes saved after Lokpal Bill is passed to fund the needed compensation.\" The column concluded the campaign to cancel Dow's Olympic sponsorship \"looks like one    
more way to create a lot of hot air amounting to precisely nothing substantial for the people of Bhopal.\"                                                                            
http://www.mid-day.com/news/2011/dec/071211-opinion-The-hypocrisy-of-the-Bhopal-tragedy.htm                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/7 Indian sports media SportzPower reported it has accessed the note from India's Ministry of External Affairs to the PM's Office regarding Dow's Olympic sponsorship and posted   
some excerpts.                                                                                                                                                                       
The report began with Rogge's statement to the IOA about talking with its athletes and acknowledging the emotional sensitivity of the Bhopal issue. SportzPower pragmatically noted  
\"Rogge's line of argument is only to be expected.\"                                                                                                                                   
The note excerpts were that Coe told the Indian mission in London he and LOCOG are satisfied with the Dow sponsorship decision \"and offered to make a presentation for the Mission   
on the issue. The Mayor of London has indicated he would like to know our thinking in this matter, give the importance of the relations between India and the United Kingdom.\"       
The note indicated the Mission was directed to \"seek presentation from [LOCOG] and share the presentation with the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.\"                            
SportzPower concluded the GoI was \"going through the proper channels\" but LOCOG's response was predictable, and asked if the GoI's actions were \"showing serious intent when the     
real intention is to buy time under the expectation that the protests will lose momentum over the coming months? More than likely.\"                                                  
http://www.sportzpower.com/?q=content/rogge-asks-ioa-settle-dow-row-indian-athletes-govt                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/7 Times of India published two editorial pieces with opposing viewpoints on the Olympic sponsorship issue.                                                                        
 - One called the sponsorship and the IOC's support of it morally offensive and in violation of the Olympic spirit.                                                                  
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Cannot-evade-moral-issues/articleshow/11022713.cms                                                                         
 - The other said talk of an Indian boycott \"is going a step too far\" and questioned whether it was \"truly advisable to hold sport ransom to a political and legal issue in this     
manner?\" Examples of winning Olympic performances in unlikely circumstances given included Jesse Owens' four gold medals in Nazi Berlin.                                             
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Sport-should-transcend-politics/articleshow/11022747.cms                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                     
A Times of India sports column writer found it \"curious\" the IOA had not objected to Dow's IOC partnership when it was announced in 2010. The inevitability of Dow working with all  
the National Olympic Committees before and during the London Games was \"of critical importance to India,\" and \"under such a scenario, India may even ask the IOC to reconsider its   
deal with Dow.\" The piece covered the Sports ministry's letter to the IOA about communicating with the IOC on the matter, and the IOC's response. The article ended by mentioning    
Lord Coe's assurance Dow \"was not involved in the gas disaster in Bhopal,\" and that he \"pooh-poohed\" the possibility of an Indian boycott.                                           
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/events-tournaments/london-olympics/Govt-asks-IOA-to-take-up-Dow-issue-with-IOC/articleshow/10998872.cms                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Bhopal Central Chronicle reported on the \"other\" change.org petition that was addressed to the IOA and intended for athletes to sign. The item has gathered 900 signatures of 1,000  
targeted. The Chronicle reporter claimed the petition surpassing 750 signatures made it a significant pressure on the IOA going into the Dec. 15 meeting.                            
http://www.centralchronicle.com/ioa-faces-new-pressure-to-boycott-dow-olympic-2012.html                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Sri Lanka Guardian posted a commentary about Dow risking its reputation and good will over the Olympics sponsorship. This included a description of DAS India being blacklisted.     
http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2011/12/dow-chemical-now-facing-image-issues-in.html                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
UK local media North West Times published a lengthy letter to the editor criticizing Lord Coe for the Dow sponsorship and claiming it would result in \"big protests and disrupt the  
Games,\" with the possibility of \"bringing Wembley and other venues to a standstill.\" The letter encouraged readers to email the Culture, Media and Sport commission \"asking for the  
decision to be reversed,\" and to sign Lorraine Close's change.org petition. No name was provided, full text is available on request.                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Bhopal Anniversary Media Summary                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/2 BBC and Reuters reported on the Bhopal anniversary protests and effigy burnings held Friday. Limited pickup of the Reuters story.                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/3 The ICJB's rail roko protest and resulting violence drew global coverage led by AP and AFP. AP issued an update to its original wire story, with more than 100 combined         
pickups; the AFP piece received about two dozen pickups.                                                                                                                             
Indian media reported heavily on the events, sending successive posts from the scene as the news developed. PTI, IBNS, UNI, Pioneer, DNA and broadcast news covered the event. PTI   
and Pioneer were most prolific in filing reports, and PTI was widely picked up by Indian and Asian media outlets.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/4 AP issued a follow-up report from Bhopal with reactions from activists and public figures. Fewer than 50 pickups were seen, spread across international outlets and a handful   
in the US, mainly broadcast outlets.                                                                                                                                                 
Indian media majors published in-house reporting on the violence aftermath, including the Hindu, Hindustan Times, Times of India, Daily News & Analysis (DNA) and Asian Age.         
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/5-7 A variety of Indian media reported NGOs, public figures and agencies either called for or announced enquiry panels to investigate the rail roko violence.                     
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/3 Global media: Bhopal anniversary effigy burnings and protests                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Reuters issued an article on the campaign against Dow's Olympics sponsorship, the proposed boycott by Indian athletes, Malhotra's statement the IOA would not entertain a boycott    
vote, MP CM Chouhan's letter to India's Sports Minister, and the gas NGOs demands for more compensation.                                                                             
Few pickups.                                                                                                                                                                         
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/260538/20111202/dow-chemical-s-sponsorship-london-olympics-angers.htm                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
BBC posted a report on the protest and burning of effigies of Lord Coe and IOA president Malhotra, the gas NGOs demands for more compensation, and Dow's response to criticism of    
its sponsoring the Olympic stadium wrap.                                                                                                                                             
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16001266                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/3 Global media: Rail roko violence                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Associated Press initially reported on the rail roko and the resulting violence. About 15,000 people were reported to have participated. Reporter Rafiq Maqbool cited ICJB's Rachna  
Dhingra saying the police \"charged the protesters with sticks\" (called 'lathi') and at least three people were hospitalized with injuries. Maqbool reported the protesters threw     
stones at the police and that several police vehicles were burned or damaged. He also cited Dhingra saying \"the government has undermined the [Bhopal gas] victims\" over             
compensation for the 1984 accident. The NGOs demand for $8.1 billion from Dow is mentioned, as well as the GoI's bid for $1.7 billion from Dow. Dow's position on the Bhopal issue   
is included briefly.                                                                                                                                                                 
An updated version of this article reported CM Chouhan agreed to \"back thier campaign and lobby the Prime Minister for his support\" and the rail roko was subsequently cancelled.    
Numerous US and international pickups, including the Wall Street Journal website, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Business Week and NPR websites.                          
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_27th-anniversary-of-the-bhopal-gas-disaster-turns-violent_1620727                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Agence France Press reported Dhingra said the protest was \"peaceful agitation but the police used force against us in a bid to silence us.\" An MP official said the police \"were     
acting under a law prohibiting unlawful assembly.\"  Chouhan's call for India to boycottt the Olympics was included, as was a brief version of Dow's position statement on the Bhopal 
liabilities. Multiple pickups.                                                                                                                                                       
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hkyhWDqQ1mBqA8dlL7UHvQbxtgMw?docId=CNG.794d1157fe2364fc0e0dcd6a77edbd08.131                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                     
India Blooms News Service posted two items on the police response to the protest, quoting an activist saying shots may have been fired.                                              
http://www.indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsPage/2011/newsDetails031211g.php                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                     
PTI reported Abdul Jabbar condemned the violence and called for the release of those who had been arrested.                                                                          
http://expressbuzz.com/nation/bhopal-gas-tragedy-violence-marks-anniversary/339807.html                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                     
UNI reported CM Chouhan said there will be in an inquiry into the day's violence.                                                                                                    
http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20111203/1884050.html                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Pioneer posted several reports describing the events of the day, including:                                                                                                          
- Stone-throwers were \"youth\" taking cover in the \"maze of bylanes\" opening on to the area where the rail roko was held. It includes a listing of the ten people who were reported   
as hospitalized after the protest - seven were police or media.                                                                                                                      
http://dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/25174-maze-of-bylanes-gave-stone-pelters-the-edge.html                                                                                 
 - Congress party leaders \"slammed\" the MP govt and police for the violence at the rail roko.                                                                                        
http://dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/25176-bhuria-singh-slams-mp-govt-for-police-action-on-survivors.html                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/4 AP: Rail roko violence aftermath                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The AP issued a follow-up story by Rafiq Mabool reporting on the rail roko and the protesters' clash with police. Rachna Dhingra was cited as describing the confrontation, and      
decrying the government's \"betrayal [and] undermininng the victims.\" CM Chouhan's promise to support the gas NGO demands to PM Singh and the subsequent cancellation of the rail     
roko were mentioned. The previously-used content about the NGOs demanding $8.1 billion more in compensation from Dow was included, as was Dow's position on the Bhopal settlement.   
 The article endsed with the NGOs, \"a few officials\" and the 21 former Olympians opposing Dow's Olympic sponsorship.                                                                 
Several pickups in US regional media outlets and international media, primarily in Pakistan.                                                                                         
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/dec/04/gas-leak-survivors-protest-settlement/                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/4 TwoCircles: Rail roko protest overview; 1/3/12 deadline for MP to submit \"correct\" data to SC                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                     
TwoCircles.net Muslim Indian media posted a long and detailed review of Saturday's protest, mashing together multiple media reports. While the writing gets unclear in a few places, 
it is a good overview of the entire event and has a few items not seen elsewhere                                                                                                     
 - NGO leader Balkrishna Namdeo said the groups have set a deadline of Jan. 3 for CM Chouhan to submit \"correct figures before the Supreme Court or else the survivors would again   
stop trains.\"                                                                                                                                                                        
 - Chouhan told the activists they can have representatives there when he meets with PM Singh, and that a special court for the gas victims cases \"will be considered.\" He also      
promised a \"team of experts\" would assess damage to \"population and environment due to gas leak\" and compensation demands would be based on the findings.                            
http://twocircles.net/2011dec04/bopal_gas_tragedy_police_beats_survivors_train_blockade.html                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/5 PTI, DNA: 15 Rail roko arrests include gas NGO leader Balkrishna Namdeo                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The aftermath of Saturday's rail roko reported about 15 arrests were made.                                                                                                           
 -PTI reported \"around 70\" people were identified from videos as being involved in the stone throwing and will apparently be pursued and charged. Gas NGO leader Balkrishna Namdeo   
is being targeted by police as \"identified on video.\"                                                                                                                                
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_violence-on-bhopal-gas-tragedy-anniversary-15-arrested_1621669                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 - DNA reported \"500\" unidentified persons have had charges registered by police for arson and stone throwing at the protest.                                                        
http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/MP-BHO-bhopal-gas-tragedy-cases-against-500-people-for-arson-2616125.html                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/6 Pioneer: State responsible for rail violence                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Pioneer reported Congress Party Member of Parliament (Ujjain) Premchand Guddu filed a memorandum with the MP government saying the state is \"responsible for all that happened on    
Saturday.\" He said the police and state officials had plenty of prior notice the rail roko was planned.                                                                              
http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/25749-cong-mp-demands-high-level-probe-into-rail-roko-incident.html                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/6-8 India media: MP, ICJB, MP HRC to hold enquiries into violence                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
IBNS reported the ICJB issued a press statement condemning the violence at the rail roko and stating they will perform their own enquiry into the matter, \"presided over by a        
retired judge of the High Court or Supreme Court.\" They have called again for the release of all 14 men still in police custody and said they will help survivors \"gather evidence   
and initiate formal proceedings against those responsible for the violence, including the police.\" The NGOs apologized to the media people who were injured. The article was not     
available for online access, full text available on request.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Several media items reported on press statements issued Tuesday about the rail roko violence in Bhopal.                                                                              
 - UNI, DNA, The Pioneer, Indian Express and Ummid reported on the ICJB press conference, citing Sarangi and Rashida Bee on claims the police initiated the confrontation, their     
intent to hold an independent inquiry, and calls for individuals to bring evidence from the incident. Sarangi said of gas NGO leader Balkrishna Namdeo, if they had evidence to      
substantiate the charges against him, the group \"will ourselves walk him to the jail.\"                                                                                               
Ummid's report, by Pervez Bari, included content on the ICJB apologizing to the media persons who were injured or lost equipment and vehicles during the melee, and a listing of     
women attending the press conference who had been injured. These include Hazra Bee, Bano Bee, and \"Ms Rafat\" [of Children Against Dow-Carbide].                                      
UNI: http://www.ummid.com/news/2011/December/07.12.2011/bhopal_gas_victims_on_police.htm                                                                                             
Pioneer: http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/25987-gas-victim-organisations-blame-police-admin-for-violence-on-anniversary-day.html                                    
Ummid: http://www.ummid.com/news/2011/December/07.12.2011/bhopal_gas_victims_on_police.htm                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                     
- PTI reported separately on state Congress party members president Kantilal Burhia and MP Preme Chand Guddu making statements about the police response to the rail roko. Burhia    
\"strongly condemned\" the police force, while Guddu sent a memo to the MP governor demanding a \"high level inquiry into the police action.\"  The memo explained the local law         
enforcement were forewarned of the protest and did not take precautionary measures.                                                                                                  
http://zeenews.india.com/news/madhya-pradesh/bhuria-condemns-police-action-on-gas-victims_745594.html                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
CNN-IBN reported the Madhya Pradesh Human Rights Commission criticized the MP government for the \"police brutality on protesting Bhopal gas victims\" and asked to be given a         
detailed report on the violence.                                                                                                                                                     
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/hrc-pulls-up-mp-govt-for-lathicharge-on-gas-victims/209115-3.html                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/6 Pioneer: Jabbar - ICJB partly responsible for rail violence                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The Pioneer reported Abdul Jabbar and the BGPMUS said the ICJB NGOs are partly responsible for Saturday's violence. He criticized the state government for not fulfilling projects   
and programs it promised to the gas victims.                                                                                                                                         
http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/25751-organisations-divided-over-rail-roko-incident.html                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/9 ANI: Bhopal protest of police for rail roko violence calls for Chouhan to resign, threatens to 'ransack' his residence                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                     
ANI reported a protest was held in Bhopal by gas victims \"against police personnel\" for the rail roko violence. However, the group demonstrating is not reported to be associated    
with any of the gas NGOs. The protest was \"supported by\" the Congress party, and the group called for CM Chouhan's resignation. A spokesman also \"warned the state government of a   
similar backlash and threatened Chief Minister Chauhan with ransacking his house.\"                                                                                                   
http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/253966                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/8 ToI: Bhopal residents complain of police harassment on questioning over rail roko                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Times of India reported Bhopal residents of the Jehangirabad and Aishbagh locales are complaining of being harassed by police and questioned about the rail roko violence on Dec. 3. 
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) may hold a demonstration to protest the \"alleged police excesses\" on Dec. 3.                                                                  
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/Cops-harassing-us-for-Dec-3-protests/articleshow/11031304.cms                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/7 PTI: Abdul Jabbar wants special courts for gas victims, MP to submit 'correct' data to SC                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                     
PTI reported BGPMUS convenor Abdul Jabbar again called for CM Chouhan to \"take a clear stand on the death toll and injuries\" data from the 1984 gas accident. Jabbar said Chouhan's  
letter to PM Singh is \"not enough\" and the state does not need any special dispensation to establish a special court to hear gas victims' cases.                                     
http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/come-clear-on-death-injury-figures-in-gas-tragedy-jabbar/922548.html                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/9 DNA: Chouhan calls for Rs 10 lakh in compensation for 10,000 more gas victims                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                     
DNA reported CM Chouhan has asked the GoI to pay Rs 10 lakhs to the families of another 10,047 persons whose deaths were attributable to the 1984 gas accident.                      
http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/MP-BHO-bhopal-gas-tragedy-cm-asks-for-rs-10-lakh-each-for-the-victims-2626677.html                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/4 Express on Sunday: Chingari Trust                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Express on Sunday Whitehall editor Ted Jeory reported from Bhopal on the Chingari Trust and juxtaposing its services and needs to the money being spent by Dow on the Olympic        
stadium wrap. Jeory included quotes from both Rashida Bee and Champi Devi Shukla, who deemed Dow \"'our enemy' because 'they should show some morality, clean the waste and take it   
back to America.'\"                                                                                                                                                                   
He said the BMA and other campaigners are \"glad of the renewed global attention brought by Lord Coe's decision to give Dow a clean bill of health,\" because the campaign against Dow 
had been \"losing momentum.\"                                                                                                                                                          
This piece has content that is may have been sourced from an InterPress Service piece dated Friday, which is available on request.                                                   
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/287679/-Bhopal-tragedy-was-like-a-dance-of-death-                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/5 Pioneer: Chingari Trust awards                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Chingari Trust announced its annual Women Against Corporate Crime award, which went to \"two courageous women of the Lok Samiti in Mehndiganj near Varanasii.e. Urmila Vishwakarma    
and Urmila Patel. They are recognized for their fight against a multinational goliath i.e. Coca Cola along with the local Pollution Control Board, Ground Water Authority and Uttar  
Pradesh State Government swinging between the local vote-bank and a huge MNCs persuasive power.\"                                                                                     
http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/25731-chingari-award-for-women-against-corporate-crime-distributed.html                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/8 Common Dreams: PANNA announced results of People's Tribunal - \"Big 6\" agrichem firms \"guilty\" of human rights violations                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                     
PANNA issued a press release announcing Permanent People's Tribunal found the \"Big 6\" agrichemical companies \"guilty\" of human rights violations. PANNA co-director Kathryn Gilje    
described the event, and the press piece listed several of the individuals who testified and each ones' topic.                                                                       
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/12/07-17                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The Hindu had published two items on the PAN Permanent People's Tribunal while it was in session on Bangalore. Dow's primary connection to the PPT is the Bhopal issue.              
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-karnataka/article2685948.ece                                                                                                     
- Endosulfan victims were the first to testify at the PPT.                                                                                                                           
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article2687912.ece                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/4 BhopalNow website: first posting promotes Sambhavna, Chingari facilities                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Photojournalist Jack Laurenson announced a new website he calls BhopalNow to  aid the campaigns for the gas victims. The exact purpose of the site was not clear, other than he said 
he could not let Bhopal be simply another article he produced.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/6  Laurenson posted the first item on BhopalNow.org. The post is a \"comment piece\" by him and Lorraine Close, describing the Sambhavna Clnic and the Chingari Therapy Centre, the 
activist perception of Bhopal and Dow, and encouraging readers to sign Close's change.org petition addressed to Lord Coe. Full text attached.                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/6 Force Change petition addressed to Liveris to \"assume corporate responsibility\" and clean up Bhopal                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                     
A new petition about Bhopal is addressed to Andrew Liveris and calls for him/Dow to \"assume corporate responsibility for [and] clean up Bhopal, India's environment.\" The item is    
posted a site called Force Change and does not appear likely to attract attention. The poster is a UC-Berkeley graduate named Emmeline Sun. There is no clear connection to ICJB or  
AID activists, she has posted five petitions on topics ranging from affirmative action to \"police brutality against 'occupy' protesters.\"                                            
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Bhopali film: Invitations to screenings; review; interview with Verma and Carlson                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/5 An email update was sent about the Bhopali film, announcing its availability online, with half of proceeds supporting \"Bhopal.org\" (the BMA), and listing the three screenings  
from 12/3 to 12/10 in Boston and NYC.                                                                                                                                                
 - A fellow filmmaker, Chris Portal, posted a review of the film on his blog. He attended the MIT screening on 12/2 and recommended the film. He noted IndiePix said it would have a 
theatrical release that has not happened yet.                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/9 Film blog MoviePass posted interviews with ICJB activist Sanjay Verma and Bhopali film maker Max Carlson prior to the documentary screening at the IndieScreen Theatre in       
Brooklyn on Thursday evening.                                                                                                                                                        
 - Verma described his gradual involvement with the activist campaign, stepping in where his brother Sunil had left off in the campaign, and encouraged viewers to \"tell other       
people about Bhopal.\"                                                                                                                                                                
 - Carlson referred to Verma as a \"big inspiration\" in producing the documentary.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Ted Jeory blog: Bhopal visit during anniversary events; Newham mayor supports anti-Dow campaign                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Express on Sunday Whitehall editor Ted Jeory updated his blog with two posts from his weekend in Bhopal.                                                                             
 - The first chronicles his personal experiences there, including time with UK MP Navin Shah,  Sarangi and Dhingra, and Abdul Jabbar. He also visited the Chingari Rehabilitation    
Center and attended the protests on Friday and Saturday. Multiple photos adorn the post.                                                                                             
He wrote that Coe should visit Bhopal \"and try to understand the anger first hand,\" and labeled Dow, Coe, Rogge and Hughes all \"morally deficient\" for their stance on the Bhopal    
issue.                                                                                                                                                                               
One item of interest - he said Sarangi had spent a large part of the weekend disguised \"to avoid the police.\"                                                                        
 - The second post is mainly his article from Sunday's Express about the work of the Chingari Trust.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/8 Ted Jeory's blog reposted Rahman's own blog post stating his position against Dow's sponsorship and the text of his letter to Lord Coe. Jeory and Rahman called for several     
other politicians to sign on to the letter, one of whom has done so. Those invited to sign were Josh Peck (Labour), Peter Golds (Conservative), Stephanie Eaton (Lib Dem - signed),  
and Fozol Miah (Respect).                                                                                                                                                            
Rahman wrote that he had the Dow issue on his council meeting agenda but ran out of time to address it.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
BMA website updates: Bhopali interview; Environmentalist article; Anniversary event reports                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The BMA website has several updates:                                                                                                                                                 
 - The Carlson section of the MoviePass blog post reported above                                                                                                                     
 - The full text of Environmentalist journal article \"Bhopal's Never Ending Disaster\" by Richard Ansell and Andrew Tinsley. The piece was published in October but not available in  
full at that time. The lengthy article reviews Bhopal's \"first' and \"second\" disasters, and the legal proceedings. The journal report ends with suggesting an \"alternative approach\" 
for site remediation \"independent of the court actions\": A full site investigation backed by the EU consisting of double-blind sampling by labs in India and Europe, desk studies by 
EU consultancies and \"eventual site clean-up work.\" An addendum has a personal report by Tinsley from an April 2011 visit to Bhopal and the former UCIL factory site. Full text      
available on request.                                                                                                                                                                
 - A report from \"Nagendra in Sambhavna\" on the 12/2-3 anniversary events in Bhopal. The post includes two local press clippings with photos from the Friday rally.                  
 - An updated post on the Scottish Friends of Bhopal memorial event and plaque dedication at Greyfriars Kirk.                                                                        
 - An anniversary poem by BMA member Jade De Vries.                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Blogs: Current.com; Toxics Watch; Hadida; sports blogs; UK Progressive; New Internationalist                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Current.com, the same venue that hosts Granholm's new TV program, has a post from \"JanforGore,\" titled \"Drop Dow as a partner for London 2012 olympic games.\" It has a link to       
Lorraine Close's change.org petition, a brief explanation of the activist rationale and three comments, also posted by JanforGore, with further media items on the Bhopal issue.     
JanforGore is Janet Moore, a water issues activist who has posted several times on Current.com posts Granholm's program, usually mentioning dioxin.                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                     
India's Toxics Watch Alliance blogger Gopal Krishna has added nine posts of Bhopal-related items since Friday, including:                                                            
 - The 12/6 Hindu article he retitled \"Dowlympics\"                                                                                                                                   
 - A letter he wrote to the Governor of Madhya Pradesh calling for a Truth Commission about the rail roko violence and use of the \"correct\" death and injury figures for the         
curative petition                                                                                                                                                                    
- India's Sports Ministry instructions to IOA on communicating the \"concern\" over Dow's sponsorship                                                                                  
- Protest on \"Bhopal Day\" against the Jaitapur Nuclear Project                                                                                                                       
- A theory that the release of Warren Anderson in 1984 and Adil Shahryar from US custody in 1985 were linked                                                                         
- Times of India article reporting on UCC Supreme Court filing regarding compensation already paid and Dow not being subject to SC jurisdiction                                      
- The rail roko violence                                                                                                                                                             
- A panel discussion in Pune on the Bhopal accident anniversary, about India's nuclear safety regulation and civil liability legislation                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/7 Sports blog Insidethegames posted a column by Independent on Sunday reporter Alan Hubbard, who criticized the increase in cost for the London Games opening ceremony. In        
exploring alternative uses for -L-40 million, he suggested using \"some of it to do the decent thing and pay for the  controversial 'wrap' shroud for the stadium and hand Dow        
Chemical back their -L-7 million ($11 million/?8 million), thus appeasing those both here and in India angered by what is considered an insult to the victims of the Bhopal          
disaster.\"                                                                                                                                                                           
http://www.insidethegames.biz/blogs/15107                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/7 Insidethegames posted a report by Duncan Mackay about Rogge's reply to the IOA and statement in support of Dow's partnership.                                                   
http://www.insidethegames.biz/olympics/summer-olympics/2012/sponsors/15103-rogge-backs-dow-chemical-over-olympic-sponsorship                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/8 A blog titled \"UK Progressive\" posted an article criticizing Dow and the Olympic sponsorship as incongruent in terms of Dow's history. Author Theodora Filis also listed        
several questions pertaining to the Indian curative petitions regarding the criminal charges, environmental contamination and remediation, and Dow's \"lack of sustainable efforts in 
India, and the rest of the world.\"                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/9 UK alternative media New Internationalist has a blog post by an Alan Hughes promoting the campaign against Dow's Olympic sponsorship. The piece begins with a description of    
the 1984 accident, the compensation discrepancies, MP CM Chouhan's recent support of the gas NGOs demands, and the IOA/IOC/LOCOG statements regarding the Games, Dow's sponsorship   
and discussion of an Indian boycott.                                                                                                                                                 
Hughes wrote of Dow: \"this is not the first time Dow Chemicals has been accused of playing dirty games,\" referring to napalm production and \"leaking poisonous plutonium in the US,  
for which they were sued,\" and \"multiple sites in the US\" he said are \"harmful and.dangerous owing to [Dow's] irresponsible activities.\"                                             
The recent Bhopal anniversary events in India were described as \"successful.\"                                                                                                        
Readers are asked to sign Lorraine Close's change.org petition. Full text available on request.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Message boards: Nayaran - ICJB action calls during rail violence; Games Monitor posts                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                     
12/5 ICJB activist Shweta Nayaran emailed to several related activist distribution lists a call for action to contact the MP Chief Minister's office with two demands:               
 - Set up of a \"Truth Commission with participation of survivor's organizations\" to investigate the violence at Saturday's rail roko.                                                
 - Immediate release of \"all detainees and suspension of all legal action\" pending a report from the above-mentioned commission.                                                     
Nayaran's email alleges the violence was \"triggered by the police,\" photos show police \"pelting stones,\" and the police are targeting Muslim youth from gas-affecte families as a    
means of \"settling religious scores.\" Some of the youth are reported to have been stripped and \"tortured in at least two police stations in Bhopal.\"                                 
The email also reported NGO leader Balkrishna Namdeo \"has been charged with murderous assault punishable by ten years of rigorous imprisonment.\"                                     
Full text available on request.                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                     
The London Games Monitor message board posted multiple media items on the Dow sponsorship topic through the week. A listing of the posts is available on request.                    
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Social media: Farah Edwards driving BMA social media                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Farah Edwards Khan appears to be a main driver of the BMA social media campaign, as she posted about 160 tweets in the first four days of December. The topics vary from requesting  
others to sign Lorraine Close's petition, to posting  links to media items to updates on the rail roko and information/conversation tweets with others. Recipients of interest       
include Lorraine Close and Indra Sinha.                                                                                                                                              
One tweet indicated Express on Sunday journalist Ted Jeory was in Bhopal for the anniversary.                                                                                        
Full text of the twitter list is available on request.                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                     
Social media activity on the Bhopal topics peaked on the weekend, with over 150 tweets on Sunday alone. That is not viral, but definitely indicative of an extended conversation.    
Full text available on request.                                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                     
BMA's Twitter and Facebook feeds have consisted mainly on media links, recommendations for tweet recipients to sign Close's petition, and links to the Amnesty International UK and  
USA statements/action on the Dow sponsorship.                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                   Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                     
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                        Allis Information Management, Inc..                                                                          

   Please remove me from this mailing list.

    
","2011-12-10 00:55:40",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/396510_dow-confidential-bhopal-monitoring-report-friday-december-09.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","mongoven@stratfor.com","attach/35/35407_Activist_info_12-03-11_AI_USA_to_USOC.pdf
attach/35/35408_Blog_12-05-11_AI_USA_action_call.pdf
attach/35/35411_Activist_info_12-05-11_B_Gardiner_site.pdf"
396520,"Re: STAFF - ICJB coordinators/board
","   Yeah the whole thing is weird.  Ortman was first working out of PANNA's
   office (and on PANNA's staff list) but apparently ICJB is still under
   PANNA's wing but PANNA no longer lists Ortman on staff.  If you want to
   send a donation to ICJB you still send it to PANNA c/o Ortman, though.

   On 12/23/2010 1:56 PM, Joseph de Feo wrote:

     Ortman has been the coordinator for years.  Rosenfeld is newer to the
     post -- probably this year.  Anyway, seems odd that ICJB needs two.

     On 12/23/2010 1:49 PM, Kathleen Morson wrote:

       Shana Ortman and Claire Rosenfeld are the US coordinators for ICJB.

       http://www.studentsforbhopal.org/node/57
       Advisory Board
       The Students for Bhopal Advisory Board is the national leadership body
       for SfB, representing the North American grassroots supporters of the
       International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal. Composed of
       approximately 7 volunteer members as well as the US staff member of
       ICJB, the Advisory Board coordinates the actions, projects, and
       initiatives undertaken by ICJB/SfB in North America.

       Who is on the Advisory Board?
       Shana Blustein Ortman
       U.S. Coordinator, International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal; SfB
       Advisory Board Member
       Shana has worked on social and environmental justice for the past 10
       years, and she is extremely moved and inspired by the struggle for
       Justice in Bhopal.  Before becoming the U.S. Coordinator for ICJB in
       April 2008, she spent nearly four years at ForestEthics, where she was
       the Lead Organizer on the Paper Campaign.  Her work focused on
       leadership development and creating grassroots organizing for a
       campaign that is transforming the catalog industry and protecting
       Endangered Forests. Most notably, in 2006, they won the Victoria's
       Dirty Secret campaign, a three year campaign that included over 750
       grassroots actions across North America.  Shana got her B.A. in
       Humanities, with a focus on Children's Literature and Social Change
       from New College of California in 2005.  She also spent two years
       studying Anthropology at Grinnell College, where she was very involved
       with student activism for environmental justice and human rights.   

       Claire Rosenfeld
       U.S. Coordinator, International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal; SfB
       Advisory Board Member

       Claire got involved with ICJB when she spent a week in July/2008 at
       the Sambhavna Trust Clinic in Bhopal.  She interned over summer with
       Shana at ICJB in San Francisco and organized the hugely successful
       curry cook-off fundraiser. Claire earned her B.A. in Cultural Studies
       and Foreign Languages (Spanish, Hindi) at the Evergreen State College
       in Olympia, WA. As part of the advisory board, she hopes to
       collaborate with groups committed to resolving the ongoing tragedy and
       provide her own insight about the direction of the campaign in North
       America. She brings her strong belief that corporate profit should
       never come at the price of human lives.

       Tony Millard
       SfB Advisory Board Member
       Tony graduated from the Northwestern University Medill School of
       Journalism in 2006, and he is currently working as a producer, writer
       and editor for an XM satellite medical radio station called ReachMD.
       In his first year on the AB, he helped to coordinate our extensive
       media campaign throughout the entire 2008 Padyatra, which included
       frequent press releases and outreach to news and information outlets
       across a variety of mediums throughout the United States.

       Having volunteered at the Sambhavna Clinic in Bhopal for most of a
       year spanning parts of 2006 and 2007, he hasa firm, first-hand
       perspective of the situation on the ground in Bhopal. From Sambhavna
       to the dilapidated factory, to Oriya Basti and Hamidia Hospital, to
       the oft-protested home of the chief minister of Madhya Pradesh in
       Shamla Hills, his knowledge of Bhopal is a benefit to our strategizing
       and planning actions here in the United States. This applies
       particularly from the standpoint of communicating to others the extent
       of the devastation across Bhopal, but more importantly, the spirit of
       the Bhopalis who continue to fight for Justice.

       Diana Katgara
       SfB Advisory Board Member
       Diana had the chance to spend some time in Bhopal and get to know a
       number of people there. These people who are strong, brillliant,
       loving, creative, inspirational, funny, musical, articulate,
       insightful, caring, full of hope and who will never ever give up
       fighting for justice for themselves and fighting to ensure that what
       has happened to Bhopalis doesn't happen to others have become an
       important part of her life. **The grave injustices that have happened
       and continue to happen in Bhopal are unacceptable. From December 3rd,
       1984 onwards Bhopalies have witnessed the horrors of losing their
       loved ones and continue to be lied to and cheated out of effective
       health care, clean water, safety against deadly poisons, the ability
       to earn, the right not to have to feed babies contaminated breast
       milk, just to name a few things. And yet, they continue to have hope
       and love and show care to eachother and those of us who ask if we can
       stand alongside them. They continue to have hope and trust that the
       world will not let this injustice continue.**Over the last year and a
       half she hasseen the creative and meaningful ways that the SfB has
       supported the Bhopal Campaign in the US and she thinks it would be
       great to bring some of that over to Canada.

       Yogesh Simmhan
       SfB Advisory Board Member
       Yogesh brings his passion for justice to the Advisory Board--he hopes
       to improve the lives of Bhopalis, and fight corporate greed and
       government apathy. Co-founder of AID at the Indiana University,
       Bloomington, Yogesh organized all Bhopal-related events at his
       university from 2003-2007 including vigils, protests, panel
       discussions with Ryan Bodyani and Rajan Sharma, and a Bhopal photo
       exhibit. Additionally, he has worked with Amnesty International in
       picketing a talk by Dow CEO Andrew Liveris in Indianapolis.   In 2006
       he helped host the Students for Bhopal conference in Bloomington.
       Yogesh has experience in letter writing, media management, and event
       organizing. He sees the approaching 25th anniversary of the gas
       tragedy as an important opportunity: \"The looming 25th  anniversary is
       a crucial juncture for our campaign and SfB needs all the support
       possible to mobilize across the US. This is the time for everyone
       associated with the campaign to stand up and be counted, and I'm
       answering this call.\"

       Ellen Shifrin
       SFB Advisory Board Member
       A former professor and administer, Ellen has strong communication and
       organizational skills.   Her involvement with the campaign for justice
       in Bhopal began in 2008, but she was involved with Amnesty
       International for many years.   She has been invited to table at the
       UN Association of Canada, Toronto event on Water and the AI
       Business&Human Rights conference, The Case for Water as a Human
       Right.   Having traveled to the subcontinent eight times, Ellen is
       looking forward to combining her deep-rooted passions for human rights
       and India.
       Why do you believe in justice for Bhopal?
       \"Bhopal serves not only as a situation in itself, but also as a model
       for people in other places fighting the same type of violations. There
       are so many levels on which to work for justice in Bhopal - human and
       environmental rights, politics, economics, and the human spirit. So
       because Bhopal will always be with us in one way or another, because
       the fight of the gas and water-affected people is wholly non-violent,
       because the spirit of the survivors is so strong--all these are
       reasons why I want to be part of the Advisory Board, why I want to be
       more involved, and why I feel it's such an important cause to be
       whole-heartedly committed to.\"

        

        

        

       Leonid Chindelevitch
       SFB Advisory Board Member

       After being involved with the Bhopal campaign for 3 years at the local
       level and gained experience in activities ranging from making banners
       and folding my body in the shape of various letters to preparing
       budget requests and coordinating the chapter's activities, Leonid has
       taken the next step of joining the campaign's Advisory Board. He
       expects to make significant contribution to SfB by organizing
       fundraising events, recruiting new members to the campaign and
       contacting the media. In addition, he hopes to bring new insights into
       campaign strategies on the 25th anniversary of the Bhopal disaster.

        

       Interested in joining the Advisory Board?
       In the fall there are Advisory Board nominations for positions that
       last for one year.  Occasionally there are openings during other parts
       of the year.  Email shana@panna.org to learn more.

        

        

       Past Members of the Advisory Board
       Pragya Bhagat (2007-09)

       Association for India's Development, Austin

       Aqueue Freechild (2004-2009)

       US Strategy Coordinator, ICJB

       Daniel Yeow (2007-08)

       Amnesty International, Columbia University

       Raghav Kaushik (2006-2007)

       Ryan Bodyani (2004-2007)

       Student Coordinator, ICJB
","2010-12-23 20:01:59",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/396520_re-staff-icjb-coordinators-board-.html","morson@stratfor.com","","mongoven@stratfor.com,defeo@stratfor.com,pubpolblog.post@blogger.com",""
396636,"Bhopal update 12-08-11 media
","   Scot, Tomm,

   Reuters reported India's first athlete to qualify for the London Olympics,
   marksman Gagan Narang, said Dow's Olympics sponsorship is an opportunity
   for the company to gain \"redemption\" and should be allowed. He agreed with
   IOC president Rogge that a boycott would only hurt the Indian athletes,
   and stated the athletes are to go to the Games as ambassadors for their
   country.

   Pickups are not extensive, mainly Reuters and Yahoo! outlets - UK &
   Ireland, Africa, Singapore, SBS, World News Australia, Eurosport, Yahoo!
   Sports, and Yahoo! Xtra blogs.

   http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/08/olympics-india-boycott-idUSL3E7N83LW20111208

   SportzPower reported the IOA plans to meet on Friday to discuss \"all the
   issues\" of Dow's Olympic sponsorship, and Rogge's recommendation to that
   body.

   This is the only media to confirm the Dec. 9 meeting reported by PTI
   earlier this week. SportzPower said the IOA \"has gone on a back foot\" as
   its secretary general Raja Randhir Singh is in Switzerland meeting with
   the IOC, and acting president V K Malhotra \"remaining silent,\" so vice
   president Tarlochan Singh has apparently taken the lead on the \"crisis.\"
   The article described the week's developments from Indian agencies and the
   IOC, and ended with \"Last learnt, the IOA will stick to its position on
   Indian participating in London Games, but the athletes in the committee,
   many of whom are from Bhopal, will not accept that.\"

   http://www.sportzpower.com/?q=content/ioa-pushing-participating-london-games-athletes-commoners-oppose

   PTI reported Indian tennis player Sania Mirza said she would follow the
   government's instructions on the issue of a boycott: \"As athletes we will
   go with what the country decides.\" Picked up by MSN India, Pioneer,
   Siaset, Rediff, Express India, Sify, and I4U, a Delaware-based media
   outlet.

   http://sports.in.msn.com/tennis/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5648177

   Bhopal Central Chronicle reported on the \"other\" change.org petition that
   was addressed to the IOA and intended for athletes to sign. The item has
   gathered 900 signatures of 1,000 targeted. The Chronicle reporter claimed
   the petition surpassing 750 signatures made it a significant pressure on
   the IOA going into the Dec. 15 meeting.

   http://www.centralchronicle.com/ioa-faces-new-pressure-to-boycott-dow-olympic-2012.html

   UK local media North West Times published a lengthy letter to the editor
   criticizing Lord Coe for the Dow sponsorship and claiming it would result
   in \"big protests and disrupt the Games,\" with the possibility of \"bringing
   Wembley and other venues to a standstill.\" The letter encouraged readers
   to email the Culture, Media and Sport commission \"asking for the decision
   to be reversed,\" and to sign Lorraine Close's change.org petition. No name
   was provided, full text is available on request.

   Indian Express reported on Rachna Dhingra stating the ICJB will do
   everything it can to hold a \"Bhopal Olympics\" with children from Bhopal,
   Vietnam, Nicaragua \"and other countries.\"

   http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Bhopal-may-defy-IOC-with-own--Olympics-/885241/

    

   Sri Lanka  Guardian posted a commentary about Dow risking its reputation
   and good will over the Olympics sponsorship. This included a description
   of DAS India being blacklisted.

   http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2011/12/dow-chemical-now-facing-image-issues-in.html

   Times of India reported Bhopal residents of the Jehangirabad and Aishbagh
   locales are complaining of being harassed by police and questioned about
   the rail roko violence on Dec. 3. The Communist Party of India (Marxist)
   may hold a demonstration to protest the \"alleged police excesses\" on Dec.
   3.

   http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/Cops-harassing-us-for-Dec-3-protests/articleshow/11031304.cms

   Times of India also reported on the MP Human Rights Commission calling for
   an explanation from the Bhopal district collector and the senior police
   superintendant about Saturday's violence.  A dozen questions posed by the
   HRC regarding details of the incident were included in the article.

   http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-12-07/indore/30486428_1_rail-roko-gas-shells-police-force

   PANNA issued a press release announcing Permanent People's Tribunal found
   the \"Big 6\" agrichemical companies \"guilty\" of human rights violations.
   PANNA co-director Kathryn Gilje described the event, and the press piece
   listed several of the individuals who testified and each ones' topic.

   http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/12/07-17

    The print editions had six instances of the PTI story announcing the
   IOA's intent to discuss Dow's Olympic sponsorship at the next IOA
   meeting.  All were in the Sports sections:

   Hindustan Times - New Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chandigarh, all on p 15
   or 16, all located below the fold on the right hand side

   Times of India's Mumbai edition had \"snapshot\" version of the article on p
   25 in the top right corner

   Asian Age's New Delhi edition had the \"brief\" version in the top left
   corner.

   Times of India's Mumbai edition also included the two point-counterpoint
   editorials on the sponsorship that were reported on Wednesday.

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-12-08 18:39:55",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/396636_bhopal-update-12-08-11-media-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
397199,"Bhopal update - 02-15-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   The petition by Max Carlson now has 276 signatures.

   Becky Moss posted on the BMA website the Focus For Humanity press release
   from 2/11 announcing Alex Massi's NGO Assignment Fellowship to fund his
   partnership with BMA.

   On Twitter:

   -       Becky Moss has posted four tweets this month. The first two were
   on the protests in Egypt, the last two are links to media on Bhopal item:
   HT on the Samar Jodha photo exhibit and India Today on the ICJB press
   release about the BHMRC drug trials

   -       The Yes Men tweeted about the US Chamber of Commerce \"plotting
   forged emails, documents to trick (AND smear) opponents. [see media item
   below]

   -       MIC activist Nancy Swan tweeted three media links on the suit
   against Bayer CropScience on the MIC restart

   In the media:

   -       Indian Express reported former CBI official BR Lall wrote in his
   book \"Free the CBI - Power Games in Bhopal and Other Cases\" that Law
   Minister V Moily \"blindly\" accused and \"punished\" people who \"said
   something against him or...against his master.\" The article ended with the
   Bhopal content previously reported on the book, that the GoI's settlement
   with Union Carbide was a \"sellout.\"

   http://www.indianexpress.com/news/cbi-officer-who-probed-bhopal-gas-leak-hits-back-at-moily/750131/

   -       Associated Press reported an Ecuadorean court found Chevron guilty
   of environmental damage and imposed an $8.6 billion fine. The Bhopal gas
   leak and the BP oil spill are cited as other \"major environmental damage
   payments.\" As usual with AP items, there have been more than 300 pickups.

   http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/f/1310/02-14-2011/20110214172000_08.html

   -       Detroit News published an article on Andrew Liveris' access to the
   Obama White House and \"reaping benefits\" from the relationship: i.e. the
   Dow Kokkam battery business. The activists will likely take exception to
   the report; expect at the least derisive posts on social media feeds.

   http://www.detnews.com/article/20110215/BIZ/102150332/1001

   Institute, WV

   -       Charleston Examiner reported a clarification of Judge Goodwin's
   injunction against Bayer producing MIC at the Institute facility. The
   company can work on \"reconfiguring\" the MIC plant, but not actually
   produce the chemical.

   http://www.examiner.com/environmental-news-in-charleston/federal-judge-explains-scope-of-restraining-order-on-bayer-s-production-of-mic

   -       Charleston Gazette reported on Bayer's work on the MIC plant and
   related training procedures. Both of these pieces referred to Bhopal in
   the context of the lawsuit against Bayer.

   http://wvgazettemail.com/News/201102141454

   -       Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) deemed the 1984 Bhopal
   gas tragedy as the \"Worst industrial accident\" in a list of the \"worst
   eco-catastrophes of all time.\" Greenpeace Australia Pacific campaigner
   Steve Campbell said Bhopal \"is a stark reminder that close scrutiny of
   corporations is critical...\" The Bhopal entry said UCC \"got away with
   paying just $470 million\" in compensation.

   http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2011/02/15/3135546.htm

   -       Left online media Global Post reported on India whistleblowers
   being killed who have used documents obtained via the Right To Information
   (RTI) act to reveal corruption in the country. A 2010 photo with the
   article shows Bhopal campaigners with RTI requests about the Nuclear
   Liability Bill.

   http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/india/110214/right-to-information-law-corruption

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-02-15 17:57:22",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/397199_bhopal-update-02-15-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
397224,"Re: MX1
","   Would like to meet, let me look at my schedule. We should keep him away
   from S4 for source protection.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Marko Papic <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:57:53 -0500
   To: Fred Burton<burton@stratfor.com>; Alex Posey<alex.posey@stratfor.com>;
   Ben West<ben.west@stratfor.com>
   Subject: MX1
   MX1 is coming to town on Friday. Will be available at noon for lunch and
   has indicated that he would want to meet with anyone that wants to talk to
   him.

   Just tell me if you are down. Something near the office -- Gumbos -- would
   probably work.

   I would not be attending.

   --

   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

   Marko Papic

   Geopol Analyst - Eurasia

   STRATFOR

   700 Lavaca Street - 900

   Austin, Texas

   78701 USA

   P: + 1-512-744-4094

   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-06-30 23:54:32",1,"2012-03-03 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/397224_re-mx1-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","marko.papic@stratfor.com,ben.west@stratfor.com,alex.posey@stratfor.com",""
397988,"Re: Assange
","   Funny...and probably good advice. It's not Doubleday, specifically - it's
   the Knopf side, but hopefully they do well.

   Happy holidays!
   Jason
    
   From: George Friedman [mailto:gfriedman@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Monday, December 27, 2010 05:44 PM
   To: Kaufman, Jason
   Subject: Assange
    
   You guys are publishing him?  Get it out fast.  This guys shelf life may
   not be all you hope. He is always one step away from a crazed moment, like
   comparing himself to Martin Luther King and saying that 50 percent of the
   people in the world believe that.  The deck is not completely full. 

   I'd say get to market in two months. Enjoy.
   --

   George Friedman

   Founder and CEO

   Stratfor

   700 Lavaca Street

   Suite 900

   Austin, Texas 78701

   Phone  512-744-4319

   Fax  512-744-4334
","2010-12-28 18:00:09",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/397988_re-assange-.html","JKaufman@randomhouse.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com",""
398032,"Bhopal update - 10-25-11 media
","   Scot, Tomm,

   The Amnesty press release objecting to Dow's Olympic sponsorship has had
   at least a dozen pickups in US, Canada, India and global media, but
   apparently not by the major wire services. The piece that was reported on
   Monday evening was seen via the following websites: States News Service,
   Common Dreams, PTI, Daily Bhaskar, allvoices, Canada Views, Yuba Net,
   Management (Netherlands), Tolerance.ca, Times of India, MSN India,
   Economic Times, Indian Express, and Business Standard.

   http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/10/24-5

   IANS reported the Bhopal NGOs issued a press release of their own on the
   Olympics sponsorship topic. Rachna Dhingra complained about India's Prime
   Minister and the Indian Olympic Association (IOA) not writing to the LOCOG
   to protest Dow's sponsorship. IOA acting president Vijay Kumar Malhotra
   had said he would write a letter, but has not. The gas NGOs have written
   to PM Singh asking him to write to the LOCOG, which he has not done. The
   NGOs said they will themselves write directly to Lord Coe on the matter.
   Dhingra mentioned the Amnesty letter to Coe.

   This piece has had about 10 pickups, all in Indian media except for Yahoo!
   News. Pickups include India Gazette, Yahoo, allvoices, Daji World, Kerala
   Next, WebIndia123, Indians in Thailand, Mangalorean, NewsOne, and
   TwoCircles.net.

   Full text of the press release does not appear to be available at this
   time.

   http://story.indiagazette.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/701ee96610c884a6/id/200419580/cs/1/ht/Bhopal%20gas%20victims%20slam%20Dow%20sponsoring%20London%20Olympics/

   Daily News & Analysis published a print article on the ICJB press release,
   which is very similar to the IANS account. The article appeared in the DNA
   Indore edition on p5 in the top left corner.

   India's Telegraph reported a 33-year-old woman is now the \"head of the
   Bhopal royals' religious endowments.\" Saba Ali Khan said she \"wanted to
   visit some Bhopal gas survivors\" on a recent visit to the city, but
   \"circumstances forced her to cancel the trip.\" The circumstances had to do
   with the government razing \"a few homes in an unauthorized colony at Arif
   Nagar, which has dwellings of gas survivors.\" Full text available on
   request.

   In Spain, Eldiariomontanes published an article about the Yes Men's pranks
   that does not appear to be favorable to the activists. The BBC/Bhopal hoax
   is mentioned.

   Spanish language: 
   http://www.eldiariomontanes.es/v/20111025/sociedad/destacados/acidas-travesuras-20111025.html

   The activist report will follow shortly.

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-10-25 17:00:53",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/398032_bhopal-update-10-25-11-media-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
398088,"Yes Men monitoring - 02-04-11
","   Yes Man Andy Bichlbaum will appear on Thursday, Feb. 10 as a \"discussant\"
   at a session of the College Arts Association Conference in New York City.
   The session on \"The Art of Pranks\" will be held at 9:30 a.m. in the Nassau
   Suite of the Hilton New York.

   http://conference.collegeart.org/2011/sessions/sessions.php?period=2011-02-10

   Bichlbaum was also recently interviewed for PBS program MediaShift by
   fellow Parsons The New School for Design faculty member Mark Hannah. The
   topic of was \"the ethics of WikiLeaks.\" Bichlbaum is a supporter of Mark
   Assange's work, saying WikiLeaks is \"the manifestation of the promise of
   the Internet: To bring about more democracy.\" Hannah differed with
   Bichlbaum, concluding that Assange's intent is to be in the spotlight
   himself, where the Yes Men \"Men are happy to make a spectacle of
   themselves in order to bring public attention to corporate exploitation
   and malfeasance.\"

   http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2011/02/the-yes-mens-bichlbaum-discusses-ethics-of-wikileaks033.html

   Yes Men Fix The World Screenings have been added to the calendar:

   -       Sat, Feb. 5 in Fayetteville, NC at the Cameo Art House Theatre.
   Sponsored by Sustainable Sandhills Promotions, a post-film discussion be
   held.

   -       Tues, Feb. 8 in Lethbridge, AB at Galilleo's Lounge, Student Union
   Building, Univ. of Lethbridge. Sponsored by Cinema Politica.

   -       Thurs, Mar. 10 in Toronto, ONT at the National Film Board, 150
   John St. Sponsored by the Elementary Teachers of Toronto Political Acion
   Committee. The event speaker is Steve Shallhorn, Exec. Dir. Of Labour
   Education Centre, who \"has worked across the world with Greenpeace and has
   a long history of community involvement in Toronto.\"

   -       Mon., Mar. 14 in Albuquerque, NM at the Univ. of NM's SUB Theater
   Room 1003. Sponsored by the People Before Profit film series. Post-film
   discussions during the series are led by professors and graduate students.

   Regards,

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-02-04 20:25:02",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/398088_yes-men-monitoring-02-04-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","mkolleth@dow.com,sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
398199,"Bhopal update - 11-02-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   PTI reported this morning the Bhopal NGO BGPMUS led by Abdul Jabbar wrote
   to PM Singh and \"demanded that the government must demand that the British
   Government and the London Olympic Committee to reject DOW Chemicals
   sponsorship.\" The NGO expanded on their demand, saying if the sponsorship
   is not dropped, India should boycott the Games altogether.

   http://zeenews.india.com/sports/others/india-must-boycott-london-games-if-dow-sponsors-gas-victims_731669.html

   Indian Express and Asian Age reported the Central Information Commission
   has gotten involved in RTI requests from Rachna Dhingra. The hospital had
   denied her document requests, saying it \"was run by an autonomous trust
   created by the Supreme Court of India.\" The CIC has now ordered the
   BMHRC's director to appoint \"a public information officer and an appellate
   authority\" by the end of this week, and fulfill Dhingra's requests by Dec.
   5.

   The articles have only appeared in the print editions at this time. Full
   text available on request.

   Oklahoma State University student media The Daily O'Collegian has a
   commentary by a Freshman in Liberal Studies who cited the Bhopal gas
   accident and Warren Anderson. The commentary is a criticism of capitalism
   and globalization in general.

   http://www.ocolly.com/global-economy-spreads-endemic-global-suffering-1.2678666

   From the activist resources:

   -       A new BMA Facebook page reported a BMA representative attended the
   Scottish Green Party Conference 2011. The BMA rep was not identified.

   -       A new BMA Twitter post reported a new video was posted on the
   group's YouTube channel. The item is 13 minutes long, had only been viewed
   6 times and did not successfully load for viewing.

   -       An Olympics blog titled Playthegame.org posted The Hindu's article
   on the Amnesty Int'l letter to LOCOG objecting to the stadium wrap
   sponsorship. According to its website, \"Play the Game aims to strengthen
   the basic ethical values of sport and encourage democracy, transparency
   and freedom of  expression in world sport. Play the Game is an independent
   institution funded by the Danish Ministry of Culture, the Danish
   Gymnastics and Sports Associations (DGI) and the Danish Federation of
   Company Sports (DFIF).\"

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-11-02 16:34:06",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/398199_bhopal-update-11-02-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
398228,"Yes Men monitoring 02-11-11
","   2/6 The UK's Guardian published an article titled \"Ethical pioneers change
   the way we live\" that included Yes Men Andy Bichlbaum and MIke
   Bonanno among the \"pioneers.\" The article cited the Bhopal/BBC hoax in
   introducing the pair. The following several paragraphs discussed the Yes
   Lab concept of teaching direct media action and described the Chevron \"We
   Agree\" hoax campaign. Bonanno said the Yes Lab network numbers about
   100,000 who are \"chomping at the bit to do something themselves.\"

   Several left and online media outlets have reposted the article.

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/06/ethical-living-martha-lane-fox%20http://fb.me/DpfAGa0v

   -       Colin Toogood tweeted a link to the article and posted the link on
   the BMA's Facebook page.

   Western Canada arts/activist magazine Art+Threat republished a review of
   The Yes Men Fix the World that had appeared originally in Nov. 2010 in
   Montreal's Concordia College newspaper The Concordian.

   http://artthreat.net/2011/02/yes-men-fix-the-world-review/

   Best regards,

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-02-11 19:57:38",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/398228_yes-men-monitoring-02-11-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","mkolleth@dow.com,sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
398561,"Bhopal update - 11-16-11 Activist
","   Scot, Tomm,

   BMA is actively sending tweets urging recipients to \"Vote to dump Dow\" on
   the Guardian website poll asking \"Should Olympic chiefs dump Dow?\" More
   than 50 messages have been sent in the past few hours.

   The voting results are not visible until after the poll closes, but the
   page has been recommended 367 times so far.

   Three comments have also been posted, all critical of Dow. One of the
   comments is from Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN-UK), which named EDF as
   another Olympic sponsor considered \"dodgy.\"

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/poll/2011/nov/15/olympics-2012-dow?fb=native

   Rachna Dhingra and Tim Edwards each emailed the poll URL to the
   \"Remember-Bhopal\" distribution list and encouraged recipients to vote
   \"Yes.\"

   Edwards also emailed 8 URLs for a \"selection of UK coverage\" on Tuesday.

   The ICJB website, Bhopal.net, front page has undergone a partial
   transition, with a new image of a Bhopal torch light rally and a
   reorganization of the information on the page. The site's interior pages
   do not appear to have changed. A snapshot of the new layout is attached.

   The Games Monitor watchdog blog and message board posted Tuesday's BMA
   press announcement and Times of India's report on Coe's hearing testimony
   on the Dow sponsorship.

   Four new screenings of the Bhopali film have been announced from Nov. 30
   to Dec. 2. The events are posted on the film's Facebook page.

   -       11/30 Writer and BMA co-founder Indra Sinha will (host/present?)
   the film screening at the Frontline Club in London at 6:30 p.m.

   -       12/1 The Indie Screen in Brooklyn, NY

   -       12/1 Pittsburgh University, presented by AID Pittsburgh at 7 pm.

   -       12/2 Amnesty International Film Festival, Bloor Street United
   Church in Toronto, Ontario at 11 a.m.

   Also, there is a new AID chapter at George Washington University in
   Washington, D.C. No details have been released about the group, other than
   it was founded \"with the help of a few AID JHU (Johns Hopkins Univ)
   students.\"

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-11-16 21:12:36",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/398561_bhopal-update-11-16-11-activist-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
398705,"Bhopal update - 036-14-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   Colin Toogood posted on the BMA's Facebook and Twitter pages that BMA will
   do a talk on Wed. at 3p.m. for the Student International Development
   Society at the Univ. of Sussex. He asked the Brighton-area networks to
   re-post the event announcement.

   The only media to report at this time is an India participant media piece
   from The Ground Report complaining about corruption at the ministerial
   levels of government. This piece by a Proloy Bagchi invoked Ram
   Jethalmani's allegation last summer that the Congress party \"received
   payments from Union Carbide...after the Bhopal gas tragedy\" and added the
   public outrage against the UCIL criminal case convictions as evidence of
   \"the collusive arrangement between the then Union Government and UCC.\"

   http://www.groundreport.com/Politics/Of-venal-ministers-and-their-corrupt-parties/2936521

   As through the weekend, there are pieces on India's nuclear power debate
   in light of the Japan disaster that also cite the Bhopal gas tragedy.

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-03-14 16:13:14",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/398705_bhopal-update-036-14-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
399265,"New video on climate change and hydropower
","   Dear CLIMATE-L,

   International Rivers has created a state-of-the-art Google Earth 3-D tour
   and video narrated by Nigerian activist Nnimmo Bassey, Chair of Friends of
   the Earth International and winner of the prestigious Right Livelihood
   Award. The production was launched yesterday at COP17 in Durban.

   The tour illustrates how melting glaciers in the Himalayas may lead to
   higher flood and safety risks for communities living downstream of dams.
   The tour plunges the viewer deep inside one of Brazil's dirtiest
   reservoirs, at the Tucurui Dam, to visualize how rotting organic material
   creates methane gas, which bubbles up from dam reservoirs to emit
   greenhouse gases in the tropics. The tour visualizes what smaller,
   decentralized projects would look like that could more efficiently
   eradicate energy poverty in Africa than large dams, while also reducing
   the economic risks of drought-crippled dams.

   To access the video on the International Rivers website, you may click
   here: http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/google-earth-climate

   Thank you,
   Zachary

   --
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Zachary Hurwitz
   Policy Program Coordinator
   + 1 510 848 1155 x313 / skype: zacharyhurwitz
   Fax: +1 510 848 1008
   zachary@internationalrivers.org
   www.internationalrivers.org
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Follow us: Blog / Facebook / Twitter

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------   
      You are currently subscribed to climate-l as: mongoven@stratfor.com     
                                                                              
        View climate-l Forum            Membership Options / Unsubscribe      
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------   
   IISD is pleased to announce the launch of Sustainable Development Policy & 
                                    Practice                                  
        A Knowledgebase of International Activities Preparing for the UN      
           Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD, or Rio +20)          
                             http://uncsd.iisd.org/                           
                                                                              
     We also invite you to subscribe to UNCSD-L and post your UNCSD-related   
                     activities on this community listserv.                   
                                                                              
           Subscribe / More Information            View UNCSD-L Forum         
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------   
   Subscribe to all other IISD Reporting Services' free newsletters and lists 
      for environment and sustainable development policy professionals at     
                     http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm                   
","2011-11-29 19:39:40",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/399265_new-video-on-climate-change-and-hydropower-.html","zachary@internationalrivers.org","","climate-l@lists.iisd.ca",""
399448,"The Weekly
","   Congratulations on your Weekly. I very much agree with it, and it deserves
   wider circulation by one means or another.
   The problem is that while Stratfor and some other outlets - as well as
   insiders - have known and do appreciate what is going on in the world, the
   vast majority of people have not. I'm not talking about the great unwashed
   here - the people who  fall over for Oprah Winfrey or who don't read the
   news - but even the so called sophisticates and other couch potatoes who
   pretend to be well informed. This includes a good many media folk, and
   most of those who pose as television pundits. When I have said - in this
   case on CNBC - that negotiations have been going on with the Taliban
   (before they actually were announced), that Germany was moving closer to
   Russia, that the US could not defend Georgia, to take some examples, I
   have been greeted with incredulity by my well educated, mostly American,
   interlocutors. I studied the debates on Afghanistan in the UK and
   Australian parliaments line for line, and there was very little to suggest
   that any significant politician was as well informed as the ordinary
   Stratfor subscriber. They repeated the well rehearsed slogans about
   'fighting terrorism' and 'supporting the troops'.  I've also read columns
   of stuff in so called serious newspapers like the FT, The Observer etc
   etc. With some exceptions, most need a reality check. As you've said many
   times, they are too concerned on reporting what people say (largely spin)
   rather than what they actually do. 
   So it is not surprising that these people were given a wake up cal by the
   WikiLeaks stuff, because they were not paying attention, which is a real
   problem. In that sense, in my view, WL has served a purpose. 
   If anything it proves the need for more of the chattering classes and
   media to subscribe to Stratfor. You could take half a dozen of the more
   sensatonal WL leaks and say: 'If you'd subscribed to Stratfor you would
   have known this a year ago\". They would then have known that the Saudis
   were in a fret about Iran long before Assange got round to telling them.
   He's obviously has delusions of his own importance, but I don;t seem him
   as a criminal. He does need to keep his dick under control. 
   C
   --
   Colin Chapman
","2010-12-16 01:18:36",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/399448_the-weekly-.html","colin@colinchapman.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com",""
399501,"BHOPAL - ICJB Annual conference article
","   For some reason the article cuts off, but good to know Gary Cohen went to
   this year's ICJB meeting. Wasn't he away from this for a few years?

   http://www.lokvani.com/lokvani/article.php?article_id=6832
    

   International Campaign For Justice In Bhopal Hosts Annual Conference  
   Press release
   10/13/2010

   Students and Professionals Concerned for Bhopal Meet in Cambridge, MA
   Cambridge-The International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal (ICJB) hosted
   its 6th Annual North American Conference this past weekend to discuss
   ongoing health and environmental issues in Bhopal, India.
   On December 3, 1984 a gas leak from Union Carbide India Limited, a
   U.S.-owned chemical manufacturing site, devastated the central Indian city
   of Bhopal. To this day acute and chronic toxic contamination from the
   disaster has left 25,000 dead, and over 500,000 affected. Dow Chemical
   Corporation (Midland, MI), who acquired Union Carbide in 2001, refuses to
   clean up the abandoned pesticide plant, which has caused a growing
   environmental and public health crisis.
   30 concerned activists from throughout the U.S., and a couple from Europe,
   met on MIT's campus to learn about the Bhopal disaster from field experts.
   They now aim to mobilize their own community members on the human rights
   issue.
   Conference organizers Shana Ortman (San Francisco), Claire Rosenfeld
   (Olympia, WA), and Leonid Chindelevitch (Cambridge, MA) warn that \"we all
   live in Bhopal.\" Keynote speaker Gary Cohen, director of the Environmental
   Health Fund, echoed this reality when he said, \"the same chemicals are in
   our veins.\" In other words, toxic contamination occurs on a smaller scale
   all over the world and even in our own communities.
   Only 10% of Bhopalis have access to uncontaminated water; toxins from the
   pesticide plant are spreading into the city's water table, causing
   cancers, chronic diseases, and birth defects. ICJB would like the Obama
   administration
","2010-12-23 20:19:23",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/399501_bhopal-icjb-annual-conference-article-.html","morson@stratfor.com","","mongoven@stratfor.com,morson@stratfor.com,defeo@stratfor.com,pubpolblog.post@blogger.com",""
400961,"FW: Failure of Stratfor-Stratcap deal
","   Don,

    

   Let's talk before I respond to Shea.  Give me a call at your convenience. 

    

   Best,

    

   Steve

    

    

    

                              CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE

   In accordance with Treasury Regulations, please note that any tax advice
   given herein (and in any attachments) is not intended or written to be
   used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
   tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
   party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

    

                             

   This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information
   belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is
   intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you
   are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action regarding
   the contents of this e-mailed information is strictly prohibited. If you
   have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by
   return e-mail, then delete the original message.

    

   From: Shea Morenz [mailto:shea.morenz@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 9:09 AM
   To: Don Kuykendall
   Cc: Feldhaus, Stephen; George Friedman; bherzog@willkie.com
   Subject: Re: Failure of Stratfor-Stratcap deal

    

   Don: 10:30am it is

    

   Steve/Bruce: pls send a clear list of any outstanding items at this point
   ASAP. This is not the only issue outstanding.

    

   Thx

   ---------------------

   Shea B. Morenz

   713-410-9719

   shea@morenzfamily.com

    

    

   Sent from my iPhone

   On Jul 25, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Don Kuykendall <kuykendall@stratfor.com>
   wrote:

     How about 10:30 or 1:30, which ever is best for you.  I have a lunch and
     a 3:30.

     Sent from my iPad

     On Jul 25, 2011, at 6:50 AM, Shea Morenz <shea.morenz@stratfor.com>
     wrote:

       Don: what time is best for you today. Also, where are we re: the
       Stratcap Man Co doc?

       ---------------------

       Shea B. Morenz

       713-410-9719

       shea@morenzfamily.com

        

        

       Sent from my iPhone

       On Jul 23, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Don Kuykendall <kuykendall@stratfor.com>
       wrote:

         All is fine.  Shea and I are getting together Monday to work things
         out.  We blamed everything on the lawyers.  The result will be a
         frustrating StratCap and Service agreement that you and Bruce will
         vomit over.  So be it.  George, Shea and I are on the same wave
         length and are willing to have loose ends in the contract to get the
         business deal done.  The three of us have an understanding that goes
         beyond whatnots in the future that might happen.  If we can't trust
         each other, then things are going to fail regardless what the
         contract reads.  StratCap and STRATFOR are the same investment to
         Shea, George and me.  That's the way we move forward.  Do not spend
         time, you neither Bruce, on the service agreement until you hear
         from Shea or me.  

         Don

          

         Sent from my iPhone

         On Jul 23, 2011, at 1:13 PM, \"Feldhaus, Stephen\"
         <sf@feldhauslaw.com> wrote:

           Thanks, George.  I am glad you have gotten into the mix.  Life is
           too short for us to do this deal if it is going to involve the
           type of dealings that we have had with Bruce over the past four
           months (and Shea has to take some responsibility for the way Bruce
           has handled himself-Bruce may be the operator, but Shea read the
           documents and had them explained to him by Bruce, and he didn't
           put a stop to it).

            

           I am inclined to believe that this is going to work out.  Shea not
           only has a lot involved in making sure that this does work out,
           but from what Don has learned about Shea, what Bruce has done is
           not typical of who Shea is or how he operates.

            

           One point of reference.  Shea was with Goldman Sachs, but he was
           head of their regional private wealth group.  He was a
           relationship guy, not a deal guy.  He might have been around
           deals, but he has never done anything like this before.  So I
           think it is important for all of us to realize that he is most
           likely learning as he goes.  Our goal is to make sure he doesn't
           learn some really bad habits that will make living with him hell
           for us.  But if in the course of your talks you happen to find out
           that the bad habits are his, and not just Bruce's, let's all run
           for the hills.

            

           Best,

            

           Steve

            

            

            

                              CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE

           In accordance with Treasury Regulations, please note that any tax
           advice given herein (and in any attachments) is not intended or
           written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the
           purpose of (i) avoiding tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing
           or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
           addressed herein.

            

                             

           This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential
           information belonging to the sender which is legally privileged.
           The information is intended only for the use of the individual or
           entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
           hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the
           taking of any action regarding the contents of this e-mailed
           information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
           transmission in error, please immediately notify us by return
           e-mail, then delete the original message.

            

           From: George Friedman [mailto:friedman@att.blackberry.net]
           Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 1:59 PM
           To: Feldhaus, Stephen; George Friedman; Don Kuykendall
           Subject: Re: Failure of Stratfor-Stratcap deal

            

           Shea has asked for a meeting this evening with me and don. I made
           it clear that I expect a complete change of approach precisely
           along your lines. I asked him whether, as a director of stratfor
           he would vote for stratfor to accept the services agreement. This
           is my litmus test.

           My goal here is a sea change in his attitude and tht he accept
           full responsibility for the documents produced. I will propose the
           removal of bruce and if he refuses ask him to pay for him. I do
           not pay for being fucked.

           I suspect this will work out from his attitude.

           Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: \"Feldhaus, Stephen\" <sf@feldhauslaw.com>

           Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 12:34:50 -0500 (CDT)

           To: Mr. George Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>; Mr. Don R.
           Kuykendall<kuykendall@stratfor.com>

           ReplyTo: \"Feldhaus, Stephen\" <sf@feldhauslaw.com>

           Subject: Re: Failure of Stratfor-Stratcap deal

            

           Guys,

           You have my total support. Here's an observation that you may wish
           to use.

           We have been approaching this entire process from the perspective
           of what is necessary for success, that is, how should this work to
           give us the highest chance of succeeding with an expanded Stratfor
           and a successful Stratcap. Just look at all the work you've been
           doing George to gear up to support Stratcap. You'll see the same
           approach in my draft of the services agreement. Bruce has not had
           that focus at all. He has been concerned with legalities, and has
           hasn't always been a straight shooter even there. His Stratcap LLC
           Agreement is so one sided as to defy the concept that this is a
           joint effort toward a common goal. In Bruce's approach, Stratcap
           is totally Shea's baby, and we get whatever piece of it we are
           clever enough to negotiate, in the face of his one sided draft,
           while at the same time having a unlimited obligation to support
           it.

           I'm concerned that if we keep going like we've been going, we'll
           have to be referring to the rule book frequently to determine how
           we go forward. We'll also be putting our successful business at
           the risk of demands from Shea that have no boundaries. That's not
           the kind of partnership that I think any of us are looking for.

           I'm hoping you'll find Shea willing to be a good partner, and that
           we can get this back on track. It's in your--and his--hands.

           Best,

           Steve

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: George Friedman <gfriedman@stratfor.com>

           Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 11:34:01 -0400

           To: Shea Morenz<shea@morenzfamily.com>; don
           kuykendall<don.kuykendall@stratfor.com>; Feldhaus,
           Stephen<sf@feldhauslaw.com>;
           bherzog@willkie.com<bherzog@willkie.com>

           Subject: Failure of Stratfor-Stratcap deal

            

           Gentleman:

           As you know I have stayed out of the negotiations to this point. I
           am not entering the negotiations now.  I am simply looking back on
           the course of the negotiations, the current status, comparing it
           to the absolute requirements I expressed to Shea at the beginning,
           and pointing out that the agreement, and above all the tone of the
           negotiations, have failed to meet my requirements as stated
           clearly to Shea, and that therefore, I can't agree to this deal.

           I pointed out to Shea that any agreements had to contain the
           following elements:

           1: The interests of the two companies had to be completely
           aligned.
           2: I had to have a completely non-adversarial relationship with
           Shea.
           3: Nothing could threaten Don and my control of Stratfor except
           that we explicitly agree to that.
           4: I must not, under any circumstances be \"Dr. Kooped,\" that is
           turned into a powerless figurehead, without power, ridiculed for
           the failures of others.

           These were not economic issues . They were existential issues of
           how I planned to live my life.  In reviewing the negotiations and
           current documents, my clearly stated requirements have not only
           not been met, but to the contrary, have been ignored.

           Let me begin with the negotiations which have been nasty, brutish
           and long.  I don't know if what I have observed from afar is
           simply a clumsy attempt at a good/cop bad cop routine or that Shea
           literally couldn't control Bruce, and I frankly don't care. What
           is of concern to me is that the singularly unpleasant approach to
           the negotiations of Bruce represents Shea's values and that I can
           expect more of it in the future. I won't live in that environment
           so the atmosphere of the negotiations for me is a deal killer. 
           Whether Bruce was acting at Shea's behest or Shea simply permitted
           that to go forward, Bruce's behavior is a serious red flag to me
           about what life would be like working with Shea.

           Let me review the way this deal has emerged.  We began at the
           Headliners Club where Shea proposed an investment of $2.5 million
           dollars. That was reduced to $2.25 million.  I am not comfortable
           with that sort of behavior, but I suppose it is something that
           businessmen need to do and let it pass.  I then discovered that
           agreeing to the investment accelerated the payment of taxes by
           $300 thousand dollars. Certainly this is merely an acceleration
           but it does draw down our immediate cash availability and made me
           quite unhappy.  Finally, the absurd legal fees of the
           negotiations--where I actually have to pay for Bruce's clumsy
           attempts to undermine the process--draws it down another $200
           thousand.  We have gone from $2.5 million for 10 percent of the
           company to an effective investment of perhaps $1.75 million for
           the same ten percent.  Frankly, the deal has become a lot less
           attractive to me.  I understand that Shea is investing the $2.25
           million, but I have to look at it in terms of what we get, not
           what he has put in. 

           Still, the deal remained feasible.  What pushed it out of the
           realm of possibility was the services agreement.  In that
           agreement, Stratfor agrees to provide StraCap with an unspecified
           and unlimited intelligence service in support of StratCap. 
           Neither Shea nor I have any real idea what the amount will be.  We
           are at the very beginning of understanding what will be required. 
           In effect, under this agreement, Stratfor is writing a blank check
           to StratCap that is not even limited by the amount investment. 
           Stratfor's liability is limited only by StratCap's needs, which
           are unknown and inherently unknowable at this point. 

           I can imagine easily a scenario in which StratCap's demands
           outstrips Stratfor's means to the point that StratCap would hold
           Stratfor in default and even push it into bankruptcy with StratCap
           the major creditor.  Nothing in the course of the negotiations
           gives me the slightest hope that Bruce would not do this in a
           heart beat and that Shea wouldn't let him.  I regard the proposed
           service agreement as a threat to the survival of Stratfor as a
           company under Don and my control. 

           Let me remind everyone that my interest in the deal was to build
           Stratfor publishing and to participate in StratCap.  Under this
           agreement, all money will have to be tasked to StratCap, since
           Stratfor has incurred an unlimited liability.  Capping the
           liability is not in my interest either.  I would not have accepted
           Shea's investment simply for Stratfor. We have avoided outside
           investment at all costs. It was the possibility of StratCap that
           interested me.  A capped amount invested in supporting StratCap
           increases the likelihood of failure and I have no intention of
           being the Chairman of a failed investment fund.  StratCap has to
           be fully funded for intelligence operations and Shea's investment
           in Stratfor cannot be the sole and unlimited source of that
           funding.

           I don't know what it will cost to support StratCap.  But it is our
           mutual ignorance of that, and my insistence that StratCap have
           every chance to be successful and that Stratfor use the money to
           grow its publishing business that makes the current proposal
           inconceivable.  It leaves Stratfor without investment capital for
           its publishing business until and if we learn whether the amount
           required is within its needs--and disastrous consequences if the
           needs are being Stratfor's resources. An artificial cap endangers
           StratCap and eliminates my interest in investment. I will not be
           the public image of StratCap, ridiculed for the failure of an
           enterprise that was built to fail.

           My understanding with Shea was that we would--as is the only
           option--collegially attack these problems with a commitment of
           both of us to making both companies work. I feel that Shea has
           broken his agreement in two ways.  First, he has attempted to
           create business obligations for Stratfor that are open ended and
           potentially disastrous.  Second, he has done so without
           guaranteeing the success of StratCap given the fact that we don't
           know what it will take.  The premature and thoughtless
           negotiations that have taken place violate common sense, but do
           create a situation in which StratCap can overwhelm Stratfor.
           Obviously, I won't permit this.

           In addition, all that has happened has violated the fundamental
           principles I laid out at the beginning.  These were both
           non-negotiable and and consistently violated both in the
           negotiating process and in the final business arrangements.  We
           are in the absurd position where I am to be Chairman of a company
           with an adversarial relationship with a company I am CEO of, while
           Shea is President of a company that is an adversary of a company
           on whose board he serves.  Sheer madness.

           From where I sit, this deal is dead. Given the time, effort and
           hopes that were devoted to this, I am prepared for a final
           discussion confined to Shea, Don and myself. the issue is two
           fold.  First, how do we resurrect a relationship in which my
           existential requirements are respected.  Second how do we align
           the interests of the two companies.  I have to confess that I am
           not optimistic but I will have this discussion if Shea wishes.

           I am leaving for Indonesia tomorrow evening and at that time
           moving on with my life.  I will have things to explain in the
           company where we have proceeded to implement our obligations to
           StratCap in good faith.  The only thing more painful that aborted
           an enterprise that was already underway, would be implementing it
           in the current terms and atmosphere.  That will not happen.

           George

           --

           George Friedman

           Founder and CEO

           STRATFOR

           221 West 6th Street

           Suite 400

           Austin, Texas 78701

            

           Phone: 512-744-4319

           Fax: 512-744-4334

            
","2011-07-25 15:11:11",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/400961_fw-failure-of-stratfor-stratcap-deal-.html","sf@feldhauslaw.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com,kuykendall@stratfor.com",""
401468,"noble energy
","   As I'm sure you are aware, Noble energy is trying to drill in Greek Cyprus
   waters, and Turkey is raising hell over it. Basically, because they can
   since Greece is a mess right now anyway.  The move to deploy frigates
   seems to be part of this.

   I was just talking to David (the bf), whose best friend's dad is the head
   of Noble Energy. They were all having dinner in houston and the dad was
   talking about how the Turks are creating a nightmare for them with this
   whole warships thing. David was telling him about what I do, and how we do
   a lot of work with Turkey, and the dad wants to talk to me about this.
   Might turn into a business opportunity, you never know. But this family
   has houses all over the world, the dad speaks 10 languages, living in
   Cyprus right now, used to be in Quito and before that, Vietnam, has all
   kinds of crazy connections and crazy dealings with shady people. I might
   be able to learn some interesting things from him. And maybe we could help
   them understand what the Turks are actually going to do...

   Background on the issue that Emre wrote up earlier-

   This is more of a summary of the current situation and questions that
   arise from it. Please feel free to add your comments/questions before I
   tap sources.

   Below is the area where American Noble Energy is supposed to start
   exploratory oil and natural gas drillings in early October according to
   the right granted by Greek Cyprus in 2008. (Attention: Leviathan and Tamar
   are Israeli wells, not Cyprus)

   As far as energy matters are concerned, there is not much to say. Since no
   exploration took place yet, there is no estimation of reserves that would
   tells us how far Cyprus would be willing to push the deal. However, given
   the gigantic reserves found in Israeli offshore fields, ita**s very
   possible that the same would be the case for Cyprus. At least this is the
   hope of Greek Cyprus.

   As you know, Turkish Cyprus is only recognized by Turkey, whereas Greek
   Cyprus is the official government of the entire island and a member of the
   EU, which is not recognized by Turkey. So, this is an issue of national
   sovereignty more than energy production, though Turkey does not want to
   lose energy reserves as well.

   What has happened so far;

   Greek Cyprus side:

   - Greek Cyprus FM sought political support in Israel. They keep saying
   that Israel supports them, but I really doubt that Israel would get
   involved in this controversy for Greek Cyprus while it is having its a)
   own offshore reserves dispute with Lebanon b) troubles with Turkey.

   - Greece is mostly quiet, for a good reason. Athens gives support to
   Cyprus, though only rhetorical. I also have not seen any important
   statement from the EU.

   - Greek Cyprus says it will block energy chapter of Turkey/EU membership
   negotiations. Greek Cyprus has already blocked eight chapters anyway and
   membership talks are in coma. So, this threat does not mean anything for
   Turkey. Even if it did, EU members have their own individual energy
   dealings with Turkey.

   - No statement from Noble Energy yet, neither from the US government.

   Overall, Greek Cyprus has nothing that can stop Turkey.

   Turkey side:

   - Turkey says TPAO will start drillings there as well. I am not sure if
   TPAO is able to do that on its own. Fourth well in the Black Sea oil
   exploration project is operated by TPAO, but the platform is owned by
   Petrobras. (to be replaced by ExxonMobil). So, this does not look very
   credible to me.

   - Most significant tool is, though, Turkeya**s decision to put military
   options on the table to be used in eastern Med, seemingly against Israel.
   Turkey never said it would use it against Cyprus, but if Turkey considers
   eastern Med as its turf that it is ready to defend militarily, there is
   not so much that Greek Cyprus can do to prevent it. This also increases
   risks for Noble Energy when it comes to investment decisions.

   - Turkish MFA also said today that Turkey and Turkish Cyprus agreed to
   conclude a continental shelf delimitation agreement should the Greek
   Cypriot administration proceed with offshore drilling activities in the
   south of the island. Meaningless political/legal move.

   Questions moving forward:

   Noble Energy: What are the plans of Noble Energy? Are they planning to
   move on with the deal? If so, how and when? Is there Noble Energy's
   platform off Cyprus? 

   Turkey: Is Turkey floating the idea of using the military threat against
   Cyprus? Can TPAO drill in southern Cyprus?

   Cyprus: What are the options of Greek Cyprus? What can they do to move on?

    

   --
   --
   Emre Dogru
   STRATFOR  
   Cell: +90.532.465.7514
   Fixed: +1.512.279.9468  
   emre.dogru@stratfor.com  
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-16 04:35:49",1,"2012-03-01 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/401468_noble-energy-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com",""
401899,"Bhopal update - 08-09-11 Media #1
","   Scot, Tomm,

   As you've no doubt seen, BBC News published an updated article on the
   Bhopal activist response to the Olympic stadium sponsorship, this time
   quoting Satinath Sarangi. He called Dow's sponsorship a \"dance on the
   graves of Bhopal gas victims\" and promised protests in \"Bhopal, Delhi and
   London, if necessary.\"

   The article noted former Olympic gold medal hockey player Aslam Sher Khan
   is calling for India to boycott the London games over the sponsorship.

   Dow's position on Bhopal and the London games, as well as the London
   Olympic Committee statement regarding the sponsorship were also included.

   The article has been shared on social media directly from the BBC News
   website 187 times, so far. There are no comments posted on the news page.

   The reporter is Shahzeb Jillani.

   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14443516

   India's Environment News Service reported Chemicals and Fertilizers
   Minister Srikant Kumar Jena told Parliament the DRDO will dispose of the
   Bhopal factory waste by incineration at the Borkhedi facility near Nagpur.
   The article cited the NEERI report assessing the environmental situation
   at the defunct factory, which credited contamination of soil and
   groundwater to chemical disposal from 1969 to 1984, and not to the 1984
   gas accident. There was no mention of the court or regulatory issues
   regarding the disposal.

   http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2011/2011-08-08-01.html

   IBNS reported the Bhopal NGOs burnt an effigy representing \"Corruption in
   medical care, rehabilitation and compensation disbursement\" in solidarity
   with Anna Hazare's opposition to the GoI's Jan Lokpal anti-corruption
   bill. The Bhopal protest took place in front of the former UCIL factory.
   In Mumbai, Hazare burnt copies of the proposed legislation. This issue
   does not appear to involve action against Dow.

   http://www.indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsPage/newsDetails090811k.php

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-08-09 15:06:36",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/401899_bhopal-update-08-09-11-media-1-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
402117,"Bhopal update - 04-05-11 PM
","   Scot, Tomm,

   Documentary distributor MercuryMedia posted a press release announcing the
   films it will be offering at MIPTV in Cannes, France this week, including
   the Bhopali film.

   http://www.mercurymedia.org/news/mercury-announce-fresh-slate-and-new-sales-ahead-of-miptv/

   -       Documentary media RealScreen picked up the press statement.

   http://realscreen.com/2011/04/01/mercurymedia-heads-to-cannes-with-sales-kissinger/

   In India, PTI reported on MS Ahluwalia holding a press conference about a
   project to preserve tiger habitat. When asked about the WikiLeaks cables,
   he said the content indicating \"he took sides with Dow Chemicals on the
   issue of removing hazardous waste from the Union Carbide Plant\" was
   \"totally wrong.\" He added that the \"matter is in the court and with the
   group of ministers for a decision.\"

   http://governancenow.com/news/regular-story/plan-panel-pledges-more-project-tiger

   In activist communication, Leonid Chindelevitch posted at mid-day Monday
   on the Act-MA message board an invitation to the screening of the Bhopali
   film at Tufts University that evening. There has been no indication yet
   how that event was attended.

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-04-05 22:54:06",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/402117_bhopal-update-04-05-11-pm-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
402168,"Re: [CT] FW: Guidance on the leaks
","   We probably asked the ASIS to monitor Wiki coms and email, after the
   soldier from Potomac was nabbed. So, its reasonable to assume we probably
   already know who has done it.

   The delay could be figuring out how to declassify and use the Aussie intel
   on Wiki.

   Wiki holding on to other docs is to protect their sources.

   The owner is a peacenik. He needs his head dunked in a full toilet bowl at
   Gitmo.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Colby Martin <colby.martin@stratfor.com>
   Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:47:38 -0500 (CDT)
   To: <burton@stratfor.com>; CT AOR<ct@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [CT] FW: Guidance on the leaks

 Sorry if this has been seen but it is a good article and goes with what we are
                                    saying.

                       WikiLeaks' Afghan Documents and Me

  http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/07/wikileaks-afghan-documents-and-me-source

   a** By Adam Weinstein

   | Sun Jul. 25, 2010 10:28 PM PDT

   a** Flickr/ Jabber1990 (Creative Commons)

   [For more on the WikiLeaks Afghan document dump, read posts by Kevin Drum
   here and senior editor Dave Gilson here.]

   Here's a cliche for you: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And
   here's a fact: A little knowledge is precisely what Julian Assange and his
   WikiLeaks cohorts have given us in the \"Afghan War Diary.\" The intimation
   by Assange (and the media outlets he cherry-picked to preview the data) is
   that these are the Pentagon Papers of the Afghan war. Certainly there are
   a few eyebrow-raising details in the bunch, as Mark Mazzetti, Chris
   Chivers & Co. at the New York Times point out. But in truth, there's not
   much there. I know, because I've seen many of these reports beforea**at
   least, thousands of similar ones from Iraq, when I was a contractor there
   last year.

   I haven't been through everything yet, but most of what you see on
   WikiLeaks are military SIGACTS (significant activity reports). These are
   theoretically accessible by anyone in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Tampa,
   Florida-based US Central Commanda**soldiers and contractorsa**who have
   access to the military's most basic intranet for sensitive data, the
   Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet). Literally thousands of
   people in hundreds of locations could read them, and any one of them could
   be the source for WikiLeaks' data. I regularly went through the daily
   SIGACT reports in Iraq, not because my job required it, but because my
   colleagues and I were curious. We heard mortars or car bombs explode in
   the distance at night, and we couldn't help but wonder: What the hell was
   that? Every time a US unit engaged the enemy, encountered munitions, saw
   or heard something go boom, caught a criminal, or located a weapons cache,
   a report was filed. So, each morning when I entered my office on Camp
   Victory, I fired up my SIPR terminal and checked the SIGACTS for
   interesting stuff. 

   The first time I did it, my pupils dilated. A vein in my throat warmed.
   The reporter in me did backflips. I was about to breathe pure oxygen.

   By day three or four, I was bored to tears. Here's what I learned:

   Some SIGACTS are more detailed than others; most are mundane. Only a few
   in WikiLeaks' bunch fall in the former category. For example, an October
   2009 missive provides harrowing details of a battle in which Combat
   Outpost Keating was overrun by Taliban fighters; Chivers at the NYT did an
   amazing job of reconstructing that terrible massacre, in which eight US
   soldiers died and 23 were wounded. But most SIGACTS are much more
   routine-sounding; for instance, the Battle of Wanat on July 13, 2008, was
   actually the deadliest battle of the war for US forces so far, and a
   source of major controversy. Yet its secret report sounds dull by
   comparison.

   Probably the most significant thing about the SIGACTS is that they're
   counted and graphed by the military as a metric of how we're doing, and
   the obvious thing about the Afghan War Diary is that there are tons more
   entries for recent months in 2008 and 2009 than there were in previous
   months through the war. That's also a function of numbers of US and
   coalition forces; just as crime goes up when you put more cops on the
   street, SIGACTS probably should go up when you put more boots on the
   ground. And bear in mind, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison; more
   SIGACTS may mean more good things, like arrests and caches found, rather
   than civilian and coalition casualties. Even so, the most recent numbers
   are pretty sobering.

   There are two categories of data in the WikiLeaks files that could be
   really interestinga**and could cause some serious repercussions. One is
   the military's FRAGOs, fragmentary orders. These are strategic directives
   from headquarter to junior military commands in the field, and they cover
   pretty much everythinga**from orders on how to deal with detainees to an
   on-base visit by the wrestling stars of WWE. WikiLeaks provides a log of
   these FRAGOs, but doesn't have the orders themselves. It's a great
   bibliographic resource for reporters with time on their hands to file a
   FOIA request for the actual orders. But in the meantime, it's not much by
   itself.

   The other interesting data are notes from what the military calls
   KLEsa**key leader engagements. Military officers, as well as officials
   from State, USAID, and other agencies regularly meet with important
   players in a war zone to get their take on the situation. Often they're
   dull and tell the interviewers little they didn't already know; sometimes,
   though, they give insight to \"atmospherics\"a**how Afghan locals feel about
   US forces or the Taliban. Many of these key leaders take their lives into
   their hands; from my experience in Iraq, I know that numerous Shiites,
   Sunnis and Kurds with high standing among their tribesa**and among our
   enemiesa**took time to brief US officials, often to dish dirt on crooked
   or violent elements in their vicinity. If they were ever outed as
   collaborators with American forces, they'd be as good as dead. And
   Wikileaks has 16 pages of secret military KLEs with individuals and groups
   in Afghanistan, spanning six years. No names are redacted. In this case,
   what retired general James Jones, the White House national security
   adviser, said yesterday is correct: WL is putting some lives at serious
   risk with that particular data dump.

   I'll keep running through to see if there's anything else of importance.
   But most of this information is tactical nuts and bolts, devoid of
   context, and largely useless for a war narrative; what would be far more
   valuable than this stuff is the strategic/political data: military info
   that's TOP SECRET or above, which I haven't seen yet; or stuff from the
   State Department or provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs). (One
   interesting item: A November 2006 report on the WL site suggests that at
   least one PRTa**a team of anthropologists, political and developmental
   specialists, and soldiers sent out to assist local Afghans in rebuilding
   their nationa**engaged in propaganda, feeding broadcast information to
   local radio stations. It's not exactly damning, but it doesn't quite jibe
   with the PRTs' benevolent mission statement, either.)

   By and large, like most of the stunts pulled by Assange, this one's long
   on heat and short on light, nothing you didn't already know if you were
   paying attention to our wars. (And to the extent that you weren't, well, I
   guess the leak is on the whole a good thing.) For the best color
   commentary on this document dump, check out the very succinct analysis of
   Abu Muqawama at the Center for a New American Security. He pretty much
   says it all.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com>
   To: \"CT AOR\" <ct@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 1:23:16 PM
   Subject: Re: [CT] FW: Guidance on the leaks

   Stick and I could find the suspect in 3 days.

   -----Original Message-----
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Sender: ct-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:47:07
   To: CT AOR<ct@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [CT] FW: Guidance on the leaks

   The first is an excerpt from an intelligence summary probably sent to
   thousands; the second appears to be a DIA report, but could also be a
   retransmitted CIA document possibly through DIA reports, based on the
   the way the names are bracketed w/the ((.  The brackets around the names
   goes back to the old days, when this denoted that the names should be
   cataloged on index cards by the ladies back home.

   Matthew Powers wrote
   > Attached are the only two reports that I have been able to find so far
   > that deal with Gul.  These are both classified secret.  I am still
   > trying to figure out who would have produced them, but wanted to post
   > them in case someone here would know.
   >
   > MAGNETIC IED THREAT IN KABUL
   > Organization(s) Involved: OPPOSING MILITANT FORCES
   > 31 DEC 2006, CJTF-76 INTSUM, NIS
   > 20061231-RC-C G2 -N/I S
   > IED THREAT WARN - RC-C, KABUL, SIED & RCIED (MAGNETIC MINES), 30 DEC - 1
   > JAN  07
   > Importance: High
   > Classification: NATO/ISAF SECRET
   > FYI.  Extract from:
   > CJTF-76 Air Component Coordination Element (ACCE)
   > CJTF-76 Air Support Operations Center (ASOC)
   > Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan
   > INTELLIGENCE SUMMARY
   > 30 Dec 06
   > (290300Z Dec 06 - 300259Z Dec 06)
   > Country-Wide Threats:
   > (N/I R) On approximately 17 December 2006, following a meeting between
   > senior members of the TALIBAN leadership in NOWSHAHRA, Pakistan
   > (GEOCOORD NOT AVAILABLE), which included General Hamid GUL, the former
   > Chief of Inter-Services Intelligence  (ISI) Directorate of Pakistan.
   > During this meeting GUL claimed he dispatched three unidentified
   > individuals to KABUL City (GEOCOORD: 42S WD 15172 19937) to carry out
   > IED attacks during the Eid celebration.  GUL instructed two of the
   > individuals to plant IEDs along the roads frequently utilized by
   > Government of Afghanistan (GOA) and ISAF vehicles.  The third individual
   > is to carry out a suicide attack utilizing a suicide vest against GOA or
   > ISAF entities.  Reportedly GULs final comment to the three
   > individuals was make the snow warm in KABUL, basically telling them to
   > set KABUL aflame.
   > (N/I R) The three individuals traveled from SOROBI (GEOCOORD: 42S WD
   > 6817430407), SOROBI District KABUL Province to their current location in
   > the MUSAYI District, KABUL Province, (GEOCOORD NOT AVAILABLE) NFI.  The
   > two individuals tasked with planting the IEDs will employ two types of
   > IEDs, these being remotely detonated IEDs and a supposedly new Chinese
   > made magnetic mine.  The three individuals tasked with conducting these
   > attacks will be assisted in entering KABUL City by a group of five
   > unidentified individuals, described as a KABUL Province criminal gang
   > that is associated with General AMANULLAH GOUZAR, the current KABUL City
   > Chief of Police.
   > (N/I R) The Chinese made magnetic mines were described as a metal plate
   > with a magnet attached to one side and the explosives to the other.  The
   > mines are to be planted on roads frequently used by ISAF and GOA forces
   > throughout KABUL, utilizing the snow as camouflage.  Reportedly, once a
   > vehicle drives over the camouflaged plated mine the magnetic side will
   > attach itself to the passing vehicle.  As the vehicle departs the area
   > one of the unidentified individuals acting as a spotter will contact the
   > second individual, who will be located on higher ground overlooking the
   > road, via a cellular phone notifying him the package was picked up.  In
   > addition, the spotter will also relay the vehicle description to include
   > its license plate number or vehicle description.  Once the second
   > individual receives this information and observes the vehicle he will
   > then remotely detonate the mine.  GUL reportedly has received
   > approximately 50 of these mines in order for them to carry out their
   > operation.
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > INS MEET TO PLAN AN SVBIED ATTACK
   > Organization(s) Involved: FOREIGN FIGHTERS,INTER-SERVICES INTELLIGENCE
   > DIRECTORATE,OPPOSING MILITANT FORCES
   > 14 JAN 2009, TF CASTLE INTSUM 4311, NSI
   >
   > (SECRET//REL TO USA, ISAF, NATO) AAF MOVE BLUE JINGLE TRUCK VBIED TO
   > SAROBI DISTRICT
   >
   > ON 5 JANUARY 2009, FROM 2100 TO 2300 HOURS LOCAL TIME, AAF COMMANDERS
   > ((NAZIR)), ((HALLIMULLAH)), ((MALANG)) BASED IN WANA, SOUTH WAZIRISTAN
   > AGENCY (SWA), FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED TRIBAL AREAS (FATA), PAKISTAN, HELD
   > A MEETING TO DISCUSS THEIR PLANS TO AVENGE THE DEATH OF ZAMARAI.  THE
   > MEETING WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENCE OF HAJI ((YACOUB)) IN WANA.  ALSO
   > IN ATTENDANCE WERE THREE UNIDENTIFIED OLDER ARAB MALES, WHO WERE
   > CONSIDERED IMPORTANT.  (SOURCE COMMENT:  THE ARABS WERE BELIEVED TO BE
   > IMPORTANT BECAUSE THEY HAD A LARGE SECURITY CONTINGENT WITH THEM.) AT
   > LEAST ONE OF THE THREE UNIDENTIFIED ARABS IN ATTENDANCE WAS PROFICIENT
   > IN THE PASHTUN LANGUAGE AND THE ARABS WERE ACCOMPANIED BY APPROXIMATELY
   > 20 ARAB BODYGUARDS.  ((HAMID GUL)), A FORMER MEMBER OF PAKISTAN'S
   > INTER-SERVICES INTELLIGENCE (ISI), WAS IN ATTENDANCE AT THE MEETING
   > ALSO.  HAMID GUL WAS DESCRIBED AS BEING AN OLDER MAN AND A VERY
   > IMPORTANT PERSON FROM ISI.  (COMMENT:  HAMID GUL WAS DIRECTOR GENERAL OF
   > ISI FROM 1987-1989 AND, ACCORDING TO ISI, HAS NOT BEEN AN OFFICIAL WITH
   > ISI SINCE THAT TIME.  IT WAS NOT KNOWN WHETHER HAMID GUL WAS ACTING WITH
   > THE KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT OF ISI, OR WHETHER ANY PORTIONS OF ISI WERE
   > AWARE OF HIS ACTIVITIES.)
   > THE MEETING ATTENDEES WERE SADDENED BY THE NEWS OF ZAMARAI'S DEATH AND
   > DISCUSSED PLANS TO COMPLETE ZAMARAI'S LAST MISSION BY FACILITATING THE
   > MOVEMENT OF A SUICIDE VEHICLE-BORNE IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICE (SVBIED)
   > FROM PAKISTAN TO AFGHANISTAN THROUGH THE KHAN PASS, VARIANT:  KHAND
   > PASS.  (COMMENT:  THE KHAN PASS IS LOCATED IN SWA AND HAS BEEN
   > FREQUENTLY USED BY AAF AND ARAB FORCES IN THE PAST.)  THE SVBIED WAS
   > DESCRIBED AS A DARK BLUE MAZDA JINGA TRUCK WITH A GRAYISH WHITE HOOD.
   > AS OF 3 JANUARY, THE SVBIED WAS LOCATED IN AZAM WARSAK, SWA.  DURING THE
   > MEETING, THE ATTENDEES FORMULATED THE PLAN TO MOVE THE SVBIED, DRIVEN BY
   > AN UNIDENTIFIED ARAB, ON 10 JANUARY 2009 THROUGH THE KHAN PASS.  THE
   > MILITANTS PLANNED TO TARGET SAROBI, AFGHANISTAN, WITH THE SVBIED.
   > (COMMENT: SAROBI IS LIKELY A REFERENCE TO SAROBI DISTRICT, PAKTIKA
   > PROVINCE.) HAMID GUL ENCOURAGED THE AAF LEADERS TO FOCUS THEIR OPERATION
   > INSIDE OF AFGHANISTAN IN EXCHANGE FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN'S
   > SECURITY FORCES TURNING A BLIND EYE TO THE PRESENCE OF AAF COMMANDERS
   > AND FIGHTERS IN PAKISTAN (NFI).  ADDITIONALLY, THE AAF LEADERS APPROVED
   > A PLAN TO SEND 50 ARAB AND 50 WAZIRI FIGHTERS TO GHAZNI PROVINCE,
   > AFGHANISTAN IN EARLY FEBRUARY 2009.  ACCORDING TO HAMID GUL, THE AERIAL
   > THREATS IN THE AREA WERE CONTROLLED FROM THE AIRPORT IN WANA.
   >
   >
   > scott stewart wrote:
   >>
   >> Thanks. Matt Powers from Research is working it too.
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >> *From:* ct-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:ct-bounces@stratfor.com] *On
   >> Behalf Of *Ryan Abbey
   >> *Sent:* Monday, July 26, 2010 1:26 PM
   >> *To:* CT AOR
   >> *Subject:* Re: [CT] FW: Guidance on the leaks
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >> On it.
   >>
   >>
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
   >>
   >> *From: *\"scott stewart\" <scott.stewart@stratfor.com>
   >> *To: *\"CT AOR\" <ct@stratfor.com>
   >> *Sent: *Monday, July 26, 2010 1:16:40 PM
   >> *Subject: *[CT] FW: Guidance on the leaks
   >>
   >> Ryan and Colby,
   >>
   >>
   >> Can you guys please look into this?
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >> *From:* scott stewart [mailto:scott.stewart@stratfor.com]
   >> *Sent:* Monday, July 26, 2010 1:15 PM
   >> *To:* 'Analyst List'
   >> *Cc:* 'CT AOR'
   >> *Subject:* RE: Guidance on the leaks
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >> Yes, it would be good to know where the information on Gul came from.
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >> Ia**ll get some people on it.
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >> *From:* analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
   >> [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com] *On Behalf Of *George Friedman
   >> *Sent:* Monday, July 26, 2010 1:09 PM
   >> *To:* analysts@stratfor.com
   >> *Subject:* Guidance on the leaks
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >> There was a huge amount of low level information in the leaks.  It was
   >> overwhelmingly low level tactical reports and trivia.
   >>
   >> There was one thing in them that wasn't.  That was the stuff that
   >> concerned ISI operations in Afghanistan as well as memos on
   >> conversations between senior U.S. officials and Pakistani officials.
   >> That stuff had much higher clearance and ought not have been in
   >> databases containing after-action reports by small units.  The ISI is
   >> technically friendly intelligence agency and the discussion of their
   >> covert operations in Afghanistan potentially reveals sources and
   >> methods that are tightly compartmentalized, if for no other reason
   >> than to keep the political fallout for a minimum.
   >>
   >> As in any intelligence dump, I'm not interested in 99 percent of the
   >> stuff.  It is this 1 percent that interests me for two reasons.
   >> First, it should not have resided in the same database as the other
   >> stuff.  Second, very few people should have clearance to both
   >> databases on a need to know basis. In other words, the person with
   >> access to the ISI file might have clearance to tactical combat
   >> reports, but normally he would be noticed accessing them.
   >>
   >> Regardless of classification, all systems have document tracking and
   >> basic usage warnings. If someone were to access all of these
   >> documents, he would be noticed.  So the issue is first, what was the
   >> ISI file doing mingled with tactical intelligence and who who would
   >> have the ability and need to access both, because at this level of
   >> usage, he would be noticed.
   >>
   >> In a case like this, you ignore the 99 percent.  You focus on the 1
   >> percent that shouldn't have been buried.
   >>
   >> I need someone to search what is available for information on ISI and
   >> Gul.  See what you can find.  I am going to hold the Weekly until this
   >> is done.
   >>
   >> --
   >>
   >> George Friedman
   >>
   >> Founder and CEO
   >>
   >> Stratfor
   >>
   >> 700 Lavaca Street
   >>
   >> Suite 900
   >>
   >> Austin, Texas 78701
   >>
   >>  
   >>
   >> Phone  512-744-4319
   >>
   >> Fax  512-744-4334
   >>
   >>
   >>
   >> --
   >> Ryan Abbey
   >> Tactical Intern
   >> Stratfor
   >> ryan.abbey@stratfor.com
   >>
   >
   > --
   > Matthew Powers
   > STRATFOR Research ADP
   > Matthew.Powers@stratfor.com
   >
","2010-07-26 20:52:03",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/402168_re-ct-fw-guidance-on-the-leaks-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com,ct@stratfor.com,colby.martin@stratfor.com",""
403121,"Bhopal update - 09-27-11 media
","   Scot, Tomm,

   Media items today are on the Yes Men and Diane Wilson.

   -       A stock trader calling himself Alessio Rastani told BBC news
   anchors \"Goldman Sachs rules the world\" and he dreams of the next
   recession as an opportunity to make money. Someone decided he looks like
   Andy Bichlbaum (there is some resemblance) and asked if Rastani is the
   same person who played Jude Finisterra in the 1984 BBC/Bhopal hoax. While
   Rastani is clearly not Bichlbaum, the story is gaining traction and the
   1984 video clip of \"Finisterra\" is being reposted on numerous websites,
   including the Washington Post.

     According to the Post, the Yes Men issued a statement confirming Rastani
     is not a Yes Man, but \"\"He's a real trader who is, for one reason or
     another, being more honest than usual.\" Neither the Yes Men or Yes Lab
     websites are currently available to confirm the statement.

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/alessio-rastani-trader--or-prankster--tells-bbc-market-is-toast-video/2011/09/27/gIQAAber1K_blog.html

   -       Iowa's Heartland Connection announced Diane Wilson will appear in
   Fairfield, IA on Oct. 5 at the Jefferson County Farmers & Neighbors, Inc.
   annual meeting \"Corporate Accountability: One Woman's Struggle and
   Triumph.\" The preview article is actually a quite good summary of Wilson's
   activism. Her Bhopal activism and pursuit of Warren Anderson are included
   in the article but are not the main focus. Event sponsors are The Leopold
   Group Sierra Club, Sustainable Living Coalition, KRUU-FM, and Radish
   Magazine.

   http://www.heartlandconnection.com/news/story.aspx?id=667695

   There is nothing new to report from the activist sources at this time.

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-09-27 17:18:25",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/403121_bhopal-update-09-27-11-media-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
403126,"Yes Men monitoring 11-18-11
","","2011-11-18 20:40:34",1,"2012-02-27 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/403126_yes-men-monitoring-11-18-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","mkolleth@dow.com,sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com","attach/36/36542_Social media 11-12 to 11-18-11 YM FB.pdf
attach/36/36543_Activist info 11-10-11 YM Bonanno - Stockholm.pdf
attach/36/36544_Social media 11-12 to 11-18-11 YM Twitter.pdf
attach/36/36545_Activist info 11-14-11 Yes Lab - APEC.pdf
attach/36/36546_Activist info 11-16-11 YL - OWS day of action.pdf"
403291,"DOW CONFIDENTIAL: Bhopal Monitoring Report (no Friday report) Wednesday,
 November 23, 2011
","Contact AIM for more Information                                                                                                                                       
Significant Activist Activity                                                                                                                                          
 11/22 Early Day Motion: 2 new signers, 19 total                                                                                                                       
 Commission on Sustainable London 2012: Interim statement regarding Dow's sponsorship                                                                                  
 Blog: T Jeory on political opposition to Dow sponsorship                                                                                                              
 11/21 PANNA press release on PPT: videos and updates wil be available from sessions                                                                                   
Media                                                                                                                                                                  
 11/21 C&EN: Dow Olympic sponsorship; GoI sees Liveris as \"too controversial\" for India-US CEO Forum                                                                   
 11/22 Labour Party: T. Jowell asks Sustainability Commission to release documents, decisions on Dow and Bhopal                                                        
 11/20 Economic Times: ICJB sees opportunity to \"get Dow on record as an interested party\"; UK MPs playing politics with sponsorship                                   
 11/19 Asian Age: Open letter to London mayoral candidate claims Boris Johnson will loose Asian votes over Dow sponsorship                                             
 11/22 Guardian blog: Discussion on Asian Age letter and Livingstone's response                                                                                        
 11/23 Guardian: Report on T. Jowell press release asking for Dow documents from Sustainability Commission                                                             
 11/23 Guardian: Coe again defended LOCOG decision on Dow as a sponsor                                                                                                 
 11/23 PTI, IANS: MP CM Chouhan to GoI Sports Min: protest Dow sponsorship or boycott Olympics                                                                         
 11/23 IBNS: T. Jowell Labour party press release                                                                                                                      
 11/21 Hackney Gazette: MP Diane Abbott slammed Olympic corporate sponsorships; credited Bhopal deaths to Dow                                                          
 11/22 Around The Rings: Reported on MP Abbott's criticisms of coporate sponsorships for Olympics                                                                      
 11/20 Express on Sunday: Fabric stadium wrap panels tested; Coe and Gardiner quoted                                                                                   
 11/21 Daily Star: Columnist Sally Bercow - LOCOG should not have accepted Dow sponsorship                                                                             
Activist Activity                                                                                                                                                      
 Petition: 1080 signatures                                                                                                                                             
 Bhopali film screenings: Univ. of Pittsburgh; Frontline Club in London; IDFA                                                                                          
 Website updates: ICJB: Rail Roko instructions; SfB - change.org petition                                                                                              
 11/28 UW-Madison \"Slow Food for Bhopal\" fundraiser                                                                                                                    
 Blogs: Sporting News - Olympics activism; Jarvis - final post from Bhopal; Antinuclear blog from Australia                                                            
 Activist email: R. Dhingra - C&EN article; anti-Bayer activists - PPT case on bee deaths from Bayer pesticides                                                        
 Message boards: PAN press releases; Asian Age open letter                                                                                                             
 Social media: BMA; anti-Dow Facebook page; Jeory; Jowell; Gardiner; Labour Party                                                                                      
 Yes Men: OSW drum circle for Bloomberg                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/22 Early Day Motion: 2 new signers, 19 total                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/22 Two new signers, for a total of 19, have been added to Keith Vaz' Early Day Motion calling for Dow's sponsorship to be \"reconsidered\":                           
-  Fabian Hamilton,  Labour Party Leeds North East                                                                                                                     
-  Anas Sarwar,  Labour Party Glasgow Central                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
Commission on Sustainable London 2012: Interim statement regarding Dow's sponsorship                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                       
On 11/17 the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012 posted an \"interim statement\" regarding \"concerns\" about the stadium wrap sponsorship. The statement             
acknowledged \"a number of stakeholders, including Amnesty International and Labour Friends of India,\" expressed concern, and said the commission is \"speaking to key   
parties to fully understand the origins of these concerns.\" A further statement may be issued \"in due course\" if it is deemed appropriate and necessary.               
 - Several activist resources posted links to the statement. The Games Monitor watchdog blog posted the entire statement with the subject: \"2012 Sustainability        
notices problem with Dow!\"                                                                                                                                             
http://www.cslondon.org/2011/01/commissions-official-statement-on-olympic-stadium-bid-process/                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
Blog: T Jeory on political opposition to Dow sponsorship                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/23 Ted Jeory, Express on Sunday's Whitehall editor, posted on his blog (attached) the stadium wrap sponsorship issue \"is starting to enter pretty serious political 
territory\" and listed three new developments:                                                                                                                          
\"1. Lib Dem deputy leader Simon Hughes has today signed up to the cross-[arty [sic] campaign to force Locog to reconsider its decision. he has added his name to a     
letter that has been sent to Lord Coe, which I'll detail below. Tory MP Priti Patel is also on board.                                                                  
\"2. Shadow Olympics Minister (& Olympics Board member) Tessa Jowell has stepped up her own rhetoric, a) by writing to the Chair of the Commission for a Sustainable    
London 2012 to demand disclosure of important tender documents around the deal; and b) asking for a meeting with Dow themselves.                                       
\"3. Locally, Olympic host borough Tower Hamlets Council is expected to lodge a formal objection with Locog about the deal after a vote next week.\"                     
 - Hughes and Patel signed on to the BMA/Amnesty/Friends of Labour letter, not Keith Vaz' Early Day Motion. Jeory included the text of the letter and the lists of MPs 
and Indian Olympians who have signed it.                                                                                                                               
 - Jeory provided the text of the Tower Hamlets Council's resolution to \"lodge a formal objection with Locog\" about the Dow sponsorship, and to join and assist the    
campaign calling for LOCOG to \"reverse its decision\" about the sponsorship. The council plans to write to Lord Coe, Secretary of State for Culture, Jeremy Hunt MP and 
LOCOG CEO Paul Deighton.                                                                                                                                               
 - Jeory promised \"There will be further political developments by the end of this week, watch this space.\"                                                            
 - Jeory also included the text of Tessa Jowell's press release reported below.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/21 PANNA press release on PPT: videos and updates wil be available from sessions                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                       
A press release from PANNA about the Permanent People's Tribunal quoted PANNA co-director Kathryn Gilje, cited the allegations of \"widespread and egregious human      
rights violations\" to be heard against the six agrichemical companies, and promised updates on and YouTube videos from the proceedings would be made available through 
the PAN website.                                                                                                                                                       
http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science-a-environmental/28937-prosecutors-issue-summons-to-the-six-largest-pesticide-manufacturers-for-human-rights-violations.html 
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/21 C&EN: Dow Olympic sponsorship; GoI sees Liveris as \"too controversial\" for India-US CEO Forum                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                       
Chemical & Engineering News reporter Jean-Francios Tremblay posted a short article on the Olympic stadium controversy, saying \"Union Carbide acquisitions [sic]        
shadows Dow at Olympics.\"                                                                                                                                              
In addition to briefly relating the past week's events, the piece ends with a paragraph on the Indo-US CEO Forum, reporting from an unidentified Indian source the GoI 
\"is exerting pressure\" for Liveris to be \"removed\" from the forum because the GoI \"considers Liveris' membership in the forum \"too controversial.\" Dow was said to     
have denied that is the situation.                                                                                                                                     
http://cen.acs.org/articles/89/i47/Bhopals-Legacy.html                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/22 Labour Party: T. Jowell asks Sustainability Commission to release documents, decisions on Dow and Bhopal                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                       
The UK Labour party's website posted a report that MP Tessa Jowell wrote to Shaun McCarthy, the Chair of the Commission for a Sustainable London 2012, inquiring       
whether the commission will release for public consumption:                                                                                                            
-        Information it received \"to determine Dow's commitment to sustainability\" for the London Games                                                                
-        Whether it received any information countering \"the information provided by Dow about their commitment to sustainability\"                                     
-        And whether the commission discussed the Bhopal issue, its relationship to Dow, \"and whether any decision was taken in relation to that.\"                     
The article reported Jowell asked requested a meeting with Dow, reiterated the three questions Jowell says must be answered:                                           
-        Is Dow's conduct since the 2001 UCC acquisition \"consistent with the Olympics sustainability goals?                                                           
-        Did LOCOG seek other input on Dow and the Bhopal issue?                                                                                                       
-        Is there a reputational risk to the 2012 Games in relation to the wrap sponsorship, even if Dow should win Bhopal-issue legal battles.                        
Jowell said: \"It's better that we have an unwrapped stadium, rather than a stadium wrapped in the continuing controversy of Dow Chemical's sponsorship.\"               
http://www.labour.org.uk/process-of-arriving-at-decisions-transparent,2011-11-22                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/20 Economic Times: ICJB sees opportunity to \"get Dow on record as an interested party\"; UK MPs playing politics with sponsorship                                    
                                                                                                                                                                       
Economic Times published a report on the past week's events regarding Dow's Olympics sponsorship.                                                                      
 - Rachna Dhingra was cited to support the activist case. The article said: \"For Bhopal activists, it's not just an opportunity to embarass Dow, but also a chance to  
get Dow on record as an interested party.\" IIT Madras not allowing Dow to recruit is mentioned. Amnesty Int'l spokesperson Aloys Ligault indicated the activists want  
to meet with both Dow and LOCOG, but have not received a response to requests.                                                                                         
 - Scot Wheeler was quoted on Dow's position on Bhopal, its Olympic sponsorship and responsibilities, and UCC \"managing its own liabilities.\"                          
- According to unidentified UK politicians, Dow officials are expected in London next week to meet with MPs, LOCOG and activists. A LOCOG official said \"it is too     
late\" for the wrap deal to be cancelled.                                                                                                                               
- The article suggested some of the UK MPs support of the call for LOCOG to drop Dow is political, with Tessa Jowell possibly aiming to embarass London mayor Boris    
Johnson during an election year, and Louise Mensch seeking to advance her career. Anti-US sentiment stemming from \"harsh treatment\" of BP for the Gulf of Mexico oil   
spill is also thought to play a factor in the opposition to Dow.                                                                                                       
Economic Times' Sunday print edition included on the article on p10.                                                                                                   
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-company/corporate-trends/bhopal-stretches-dow-chemicals-london-curtain/articleshow/10795100.cms                       
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/19 Asian Age: Open letter to London mayoral candidate claims Boris Johnson will loose Asian votes over Dow sponsorship                                              
                                                                                                                                                                       
Asian Age published an open letter from Farrukh Dhondy to Ken Livingstone, a candidate for Mayor of London. Dhondy ridiculed the Olympic stadium wrap, criticized as   
\"hypocritical\" Dow's  \"sustainable\" characterization of the wrap, and mentioned the Indian athletes' petition to LOCOG objecting to Dow's sponsorship. He suggested    
Livingstone has some leverage in the election, as current mayor Boris Johnson has lost popularity due to decisions regarding the Games. Dhondi suggested since         
the Games will open 60 days after the election, \"A new mayor could tear down the 'wrap' or allow us Londoners to non-violently demonstrate against it.\"                
Dhondy is a British novelist and playwright of Parsi descent.                                                                                                          
http://www.asianage.com/columnists/something-s-rotten-city-london-041                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/22 Guardian blog: Discussion on Asian Age letter and Livingstone's response                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                       
A Guardian blog by Dave Hill discussed Farrukh Dhondy's open letter in Asian Age to London mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone. Hill described the Olympic stadium       
sponsorship \"controversy\" and statements by Sebastian Coe, Barry Gardiner, and Amnesty Int'l on the topic. He noted Tessa \"Jowell's concern has particular             
significance in that she sits on the Olympic Board alongside Coe, culture secretary Jeremy Hunt and one Boris Johnson.\"                                                
Hill asked Livingstone's office for a reaction to the open letter, and wrote:                                                                                          
\"Ken's concern is that we do not have a them-and-us Games where corporate interests override other considerations. There are concerns about Dow and the Olympic        
stadium and people will want to be reassured that Locog's clear ethical, sustainable and environmental criteria are being met so that we have a Games for everyone.    
\"I'm not sure how much of a \"yes\" that is, but it does seem to send a broader message about principles and inclusiveness - one I sense Ken might be delivering more    
frequently as next year's mayoral election draws nearer.\"                                                                                                              
Two readers commented on the blog post - one asked \"What was Tessa Jowell doing on the Olympic board when the deal was approved, then?\"                                
The other comment, from Rosalind Hardie, mentioned Dow's production of Napalm and Latin American banana workers seeking compensation for pesticide exposure as         
additional issues.                                                                                                                                                     
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davehillblog/2011/nov/22/olympic-stadium-wrap-controversy-ken-livingstone?newsfeed=true                                             
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/23 Guardian: Report on T. Jowell press release asking for Dow documents from Sustainability Commission                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                       
The Guardian reported on Tessa Jowell's open letter to the Sustainability commission wanting documents on the Dow sponsorship decision process. The article included   
comments from MP Barry Gardiner that Hughes and Khan supporting the campaign \"shows that momentum is building against Locog's decision,\" and \"Locog must reverse its   
decision now, before the London 2012 reputation is irrevcoverably [sic] damaged.\"                                                                                      
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/nov/22/tessa-jowell-olympic-sponsorship-dow?CMP=twt_gu                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/23 Guardian: Coe again defended LOCOG decision on Dow as a sponsor                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                       
The Guardian reported Lord Coe has again defended LOCOG's choice of Dow as the sponsor for the stadium wrap. This was in an article on football (soccer) as an         
appropriate sport for the Olympics, after a runner had alleged \"most athletes\" did not believe football should be included.                                            
On LOCOG's sponsorship decision, Coe said the committee is not \"out of step with public opinion on the issue: \"We always have a good feel for public opinion. We're a  
good listening organisation. Nobody would remotely suggest that the Bhopal disaster in 1984 was anything other than a human tragedy on an extraordinary scale.\"        
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/nov/23/football-london-2012-lord-coe?newsfeed=true                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/23 PTI, IANS: MP CM Chouhan to GoI Sports Min: protest Dow sponsorship or boycott Olympics                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                       
PTI and IANS reported MP CM Chouhan has written to India's Sports Minister Ajay Maken calling for the GoI to \"lodge a strong protest\" against Dow's sponsorship of the 
Olympic stadium wrap or to consider boycotting the Games. Chouhan called the sponsorship \"inappropriate\" and suggested the money for the wrap \"would be far better     
spent in alleviating to some extent the misery suffered by the people of Bhopal.\"                                                                                      
PTI http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/consider-olympics-boycott-due-to-dow-link-mp-cm-to-govt/912845.html                                                     
IANS http://zeenews.india.com/sports/others/protest-dow-s-sponsorship-of-london-olympics-chouhan-urges-maken_732797.html                                               
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/23 IBNS: T. Jowell Labour party press release                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                       
India Blooms News Service (IBNS) picked up the Tessa Jowell press release from the UK Labour Party website and noted, \"in India on the other hand there is a situation 
where neither the Sports Minister or any MP in the Congress or the opposition has raised any objections to the issue of Dow sponsoring the Olympics.\"                  
The article cited Rachna Dhingra describing the ICJB petition opposing the sponsorship that was signed by the 22 former Olympians from India, and the several          
officials to whom it was addressed. The remainder of the article quoted from Jowell's press release.                                                                   
http://www.newkerala.com/news/2011/worldnews-112293.html                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/21 Hackney Gazette: MP Diane Abbott slammed Olympic corporate sponsorships; credited Bhopal deaths to Dow                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                       
Hackney Gazette reporter Emma Bartholomew quoted MP Diane Abbott complaining about the \"[Olympic] sponsors associated with ill health and death,\" i.e. Coca-Cola,      
McDonald's and Dow. Of Dow, Abbot is reported to have said it \"was once responsible for killing 15,000 people\" from the Bhopal gas accident.                           
http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/hackney_mp_diane_abbott_slams_dow_s_sponsorship_of_olympic_stadium_1_1131872                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/22 Around The Rings: Reported on MP Abbott's criticisms of coporate sponsorships for Olympics                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                       
Around The Rings posted a brief article about MP Diane Abbott's railing against corporate sponsorships, as reported by the Hackney Gazette.                            
http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=38580                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/20 Express on Sunday: Fabric stadium wrap panels tested; Coe and Gardiner quoted                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                       
Express on Sunday published another short item by Whitehall editor Ted Jeory, who said some test panels of the fabric stadium wrap were put on the venue last week. He 
quoted both MP Barry Gardiner and Lord Coe on their respective stances about the wrap and Dow's sponsorship.                                                           
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/284808/Fury-grows-over-2012-deal                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/21 Daily Star: Columnist Sally Bercow - LOCOG should not have accepted Dow sponsorship                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                       
UK tabloid media Daily Star published a commentary by columnist Sally Bercow discussing the broad issue of corporate sponsorship of the London Games. While admitting  
sponsorships are necessary to produce the Games, Bercow exclaimed \"the Olympic organisers should never have agreed to jump into bed with [Dow]. Some sponsorship deals 
just shouldn't be done.\"                                                                                                                                               
Bercow is the wife of House of Commons Speaker John Bercow.                                                                                                            
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/starsays/view/221641/A-word-from-our-sponsor/                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
Petition: 1080 signatures                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                       
The Change.org petition currently has about 1080 signatures.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
Bhopali film screenings: Univ. of Pittsburgh; Frontline Club in London; IDFA                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                       
 Bhopali film screenings                                                                                                                                               
-        The Bhopali documentary was shown Saturday, 11/19 at the University of Pennsylvania, sponsored by AID and the South Asia Center                               
-        A Jan. 30, 2012 screening is scheduled at the Frontline Club in London, a supporter of independent media, with Indra Sinha and Tim Edwards to hold a Q&A. The 
Bhopali film Facebook page had previously listed a Nov. 30 screening at the Frontline Club. There is no mention of that date on the club website.                      
http://www.frontlineclub.com/events/                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                       
The Bhopali film was scheduled for four screenings at the IDFA (Independent Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam) from 11/19 through 11/23. The film's page on the      
festival website shows it has received no votes and no updates during its run. IDFA is one of the major global markets for documentary sales and distribution.         
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
Website updates: ICJB: Rail Roko instructions; SfB - change.org petition                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/20 Bhopal.net added 2 new pages: one with instructions for participants of the Rail Roko protest on 12/3, and the other titled \"We are all being poisoned,\" with    
lists of pesticide residues said to have been found on fruits and vegetables in India.                                                                                 
 - The Rail Roko instructions were given in a drawing, which is attached. Participants are to gather groups of 15-20 adults and children, march on cue to railroad     
tracks and lie down in groups on the tracks.                                                                                                                           
The protest will be cancelled if the response from the GoI that was promised from the activists' meeting with the Chemical and Fertilizers ministry secretary is       
received before 12/3. A response to the NGOs' demands regarding the death and injury figures used in the compensation curative petition was promised in 10 days from   
the Nov. 3 meeting. No reports have been seen about the response.                                                                                                      
 - The Bhopal.net front page also shows a new image of Olympic rings with the label \"Bhopal olympics.\" The intent of the image is not clear.  Excerpted images and     
texts are attached.                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/19 The Students for Bhopal/ICJB North America website was updated with an image and short description of Lorraine Close's change.org petition and \"why it is        
important\" to sign.                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
11/28 UW-Madison \"Slow Food for Bhopal\" fundraiser                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                       
UWisconsin - Madison's Physcians for Social Responsibility chapter is holding a \"Slow Food for Bhopal\" dinner and Bhangra dance performance on Monday, Nov. 28. The    
event was spearheaded by Jasmine Wiley, a med student who spent a month \"working in medical clinics in Bhopal.\" Drs. Ann Behrmann, a pediatrician, and Lalita du       
Perron, PhD organized the trip. The dinner event description discusses the Chingari Trust as the beneficiary of funds raised.                                          
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
Blogs: Sporting News - Olympics activism; Jarvis - final post from Bhopal; Antinuclear blog from Australia                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                       
UK Sporting News blogger/reporter Linus Fernandes posted an update on the Dow Olympic sponsorship and the Bhopal issue. Fernandes had written on the topic in August   
soon after the wrap sponsorship was announced. The current assessment called the Amnesty International letter to Lord Coe \"the only progress on the matter.            
Prefacing excerpts from the Amnesty communication, Fernandes introduced the wrap sponsorship topic, saying \"Dow fail [sic] to recognize their liability towards the    
victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy.\" He also noted \"a letter\" to PM Singh \"has yet to be responded to. Inertia reigns.\"                                            
Fernandes mentioned Amnesty had previously protested Dow's Live Earth Run for Water sponsorship, and brought up groundwater contamination in the Bhopal factory        
vicinity.                                                                                                                                                              
He ended by bringing up BMA volunteer Lorraine Close's change.org petition and asking \"Can any good come from the above petition? More importantly, can any bad?\"      
                                                                                                                                                                       
Sambhavna volunteer therapist Ian Jarvis wrote a final diary installment on his blog as he prepared to leave. Among other topics, Jarvis mentioned preparations for    
the Rail Roko protest on 12/3. He seemed somewhat incredulous at the lengths to which the activists are willing to go, but complimented their enthusiasm for the       
event.                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                       
An Australian blog titled \"Antinuclear\" posted an open letter from Fr. Xavier Pinto in Goa to Australian PM Julia Gillard asking, \"Please don't sell uranium to        
India.\" The post's introduction cited the Bhopal gas tragedy, saying \"India has enough trouble on this front.\"                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
Activist email: R. Dhingra - C&EN article; anti-Bayer activists - PPT case on bee deaths from Bayer pesticides                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                       
Rachna Dhingra emailed the Chemical & Engineering News article titled \"Bhopal's legacy\" from the magazine's current issue to the Remember-bhopal distribution list.    
                                                                                                                                                                       
German-based anti-Bayer activists CBGnetwork emailed a document on Bayer pesticides causing bee deaths. This is part of the \"case\" against Bayer to be presented at    
the Permanent People's Tribunal in Bangalore.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
Message boards: PAN press releases; Asian Age open letter                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                       
The Chennai environmental groups' message boards have posts by Rahul Muraldiharan of the PAN UK press release about the people's tribunal, and Nity Jayaraman posted   
the Asian Age open letter to Ken Livingstone.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
Social media: BMA; anti-Dow Facebook page; Jeory; Jowell; Gardiner; Labour Party                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                       
In addition to the usual BMA Twitter and Facebook accounts having multiple new posts of links to media and activist posts,                                             
 - Ted Jeory, Tessa Jowell, Barry Gardiner and the UK Labour Party have all posted tweets about Jowell's press release and/or the Guardian report on it.               
 - One BMA link of note is to the Parliament video archive of the Culture, Media and Sport committee hearing on 11/15. The activist comment is \"watch Coe squirm.\"     
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9440&player=silverlight                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
Yes Men: OSW drum circle for Bloomberg                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                       
The Yes Men have been busy at Occupy Wall Street activities this week, including a 24-hour drum circle session that began Sunday afternoon near Mayor Bloomberg's      
home, and designating the area near the mayor's house as a \"no First Amendment zone\" when protesters were kept at a distance from the residence.                       
The Yes Men and several other social media accounts posted on Twitter and Facebook about the drum circle announcement.                                                 
The Yes Men's social media accounts and Yes Lab website had three blog posts reporting on the drum circle and one result of a woman being fired from her day job for   
taking part and describing Bloomberg as a \"warlord.\" Full text available on request.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                     Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                       
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                 Allis Information Management, Inc..                                                                   

   Please remove me from this mailing list.

    
","2011-11-23 23:49:03",1,"2012-02-27 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/403291_dow-confidential-bhopal-monitoring-report-no-friday-report.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","mongoven@stratfor.com","attach/35/35162_Activist info 11-20-11 ICJB - new pages.pdf
attach/35/35166_Blog 11-20-11 Jarvis - Sambhavna volunteer.pdf
attach/35/35577_Blog 11-23-11 L Fernandes - Sporting News.pdf
attach/36/36557_Blog 11-23-11 Ted Jeory.pdf
attach/36/36566_Social_media_11-23-11_UK_politics_-_Twitter.pdf
attach/36/36567_Social_media_11-19_to_11-23-11_anti-Dow_Olympics_-_FB.pdf
attach/36/36568_Activist_info_11-20-11_RailRoko-English8001.pdf
attach/36/36569_Social_media_11-19_to_11-23-11_BMA_-_FB.pdf"
403310,"Yes Men monitoring 05-27-11
","   Yes Men Mike Bonanno and Andy Bichlbaum are making appearances on the
   opposite ends of the Earth - Bonanno is still lecturing in Europe, while
   Bichlbaum is at the MountainFilm festival in Telluride, Colorado.

   -       Hein Wils of the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam tweeted about
   Bonanno lecturing there today.

   -       A German politics website has posted a full 1.5 hour video of
   Bonanno's lecture in Vienna.

   http://ichmachpolitik.at/questions/1163

   -       Huffington Post and a USA Today travel blog both briefly mentioned
   Bichlbaum's presence at the festival in Telluride.

   HuffPo 
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerry-cope/environmental-activism-33_b_867446.html

   USA Today 
   http://travel.usatoday.com/alliance/destinations/venturethere/post/2011/05/Mountainfilm-Inspires/171538/1

   In other media

   -       The UK's Guardian published a commentary by Jonathon Paige on the
   UK Uncut movement, in which he said they need \"more spectacle\" to \"avoid
   becoming the anti-cuts Hare Krishnas, routinely chanting in the high
   street.\" The Yes Men's BBC/Bhopal hoax, and their more recent
   collaboration with US Uncut in targeting GE, are included in a list of
   \"four spectacles that got the message across.\" The other three are the
   Boston Tea Party of 1773, the poll tax riot in London, 1990, and \"the
   Yippies invade Wall Street, 1967.\"

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/27/uk-uncut-yes-men-anti-cuts

   -       The Hartford (CT) Advocate newsgroup ran a report this week about
   the Yes Men/US Uncut prank on GE.

   http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/news/national/nh-activists-punk-ge-by-saying-the-company-would-repay-federal-taxes-it-legally-dodged-20110524,0,7485145.story

   -       The current issue of The Progressive magazine has an interview
   with The Yes Men. Text of the article is not currently available.

   Regards,

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-05-27 20:21:09",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/403310_yes-men-monitoring-05-27-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","mkolleth@dow.com,sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
403637,"Bhopal update - 11-15-11 media
","   Scot, Tomm,

   The UK Independent published a second article about drug trials in India,
   this one specific to the BMHRC. Writer Nina Lakhani said the information
   sources were \"secret reports\" showing \"drug trials funded by western
   pharmaceutical firms at the Indian hospital set up for survivors of the
   Bhopal disaster violated international ethical standards and could have
   put patients at risk.\"

   The reports cited are likely documents accessed by ICJB leader Rachna
   Dhingra via RTI requests that have been reported here previously.

   Dow is not mentioned, the article focuses on pharmaceutical companies
   including Theravance, Pfizer, GSK and Sanofi, and the drug trial practices
   at the hospital. Dhingra termed the conduct of the trials \"disgusting and
   appalling,\" and the Bhopal gas survivors who were subjected to the trials
   \"doubly victimized.\" A case study of Ramadhar Shrivastave is included; he
   is the same patient highlighted in recent media items about the drug trial
   controversy.

   http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?rid=201028415&cat=hfu8sjsy4hjfjdha

   -       Daily News & Analysis published a commentary on Monday's broader
   Independent report on drug trials in India. Full text available on
   request.

   Olympics media

   Ummid.com and Siaset published an article by Indian Muslim reporter Pervez
   Bari, who folded together several topics regarding Bhopal.

   He started with the information from the Bhopal and Chennai press
   conferences, listed the 21 former Olympians who signed the ICJB petition,
   and the text of the ICJB . He included expanded comments from Dhingra,
   regarding the UK MPs actions based on \"initiative of the BGIA\" (Bhopal
   Group for Information and Action).

   After the several comments from Monday's ICJB press statement and one from
   Sarangi, Bari revisited the activist allegations regarding Dow, its
   relationship to and responsibilities for UCC, the polluter pays principle,
   UCC's lease obligation to return the factory site to the MP govt \"in its
   original condition,\" the GoI court petition for Dow to fund the site
   remediation, and the activist claim of double standards and racist
   policies regarding UCC business in the US and India.

   http://ummid.com/news/2011/November/15.11.2011/olymipans_against_dow_chemicals.htm

   Four print editions of Indian papers had short articles, mainly sourced
   from PTI,  on Monday's press conferences, all located in the Sports
   sections and positioned below the fold:

   Hindustan Times' New Delhi and Chandigarh editions, Asian Age New Delhi
   edition, and the Pioneer New Delhi edition. The Pioneer version can be
   read online:

   http://www.dailypioneer.com/sports/20514-singles.html

   ANI issued wire and video reports on Monday's press conferences, which
   appeared on a handful of India media websites. The two reports are much
   the same. Two former Olympic hockey players interviewed, their comments in
   Hindi on the video are subtitled in English. Comments include that if Dow
   has enough money for Olympic sponsorships, they should compensate the
   Bhopal gas victims. A photo of Warren Anderson and others from the 1984
   gas accident are shown at the end over audio stating Dow purchased UCC in
   2001.

   The statements from the two men were included in the ANI print report.

   Text: 
   http://in.news.yahoo.com/ex-indian-olympians-voice-anger-over-dow-chemicals-061826174.html

   Video: 
   http://www.indianexpress.com/video/sports/22/indian-olympians-slam-dow/6602

   UK communist media Morning Star included the Indian Olympians petition
   information in a report on Olympics security concerns.

   http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/111936

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-11-15 16:14:31",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/403637_bhopal-update-11-15-11-media-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
404322,"Bhopal update - 12-12-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   Since email capability has been limited the past few days, here is a recap
   of the weekend media and monitoring results, plus today's new media.

   12/11 AP reported Lord Coe's said in Beijing LOCOG is \"comfortable\" with
   Dow as the Olympic stadium wrap sponsor and the Bhopal gas tragedy is a
   separate issue. The report had approx. 250 pickups, largely in US media,
   although the Canadian Press Association did pick it up. These include New
   York Times, Washington Post, Washington Examiner, Washington Times, Boston
   Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, Denver Post, Miami
   Herald, Seattle Times, Bloomberg Business Week, Yahoo! News, FOX News &
   Business, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, Detroit Free Press and at least two
   Michigan television outlets - WNEM TV 5 Saginaw and WILX TV Lansing.

    - Asian Age published the AP article on p10 of Monday's New Delhi
   edition, in the middle of the International page.

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/head-of-london-2012-olympic-organizing-committee-says-hes-comfortable-with-dows-sponsorship/2011/12/11/gIQAxeGmmO_story.html?wprss=rss_world

   12/12 BBC posted a nearly identical report on Coe's statement. The UK
   Press Association and some Australian media also reported the story.

   http://www.ukbbcnews.com/london-2012-primary-says-he-can-handle-dow-sponsorship.html

    12/11 PTI and UK Morning Star posted articles on Coe's comment, each with
   much the same content as the AP article. Few pickups of the PTI piece so
   far.

   PTI: 
   http://expressbuzz.com/sport/london-olympics-coe-defends-dow-connection/342373.html 

   12/11 The UK Guardian reported on Coe's visit to Beijing and ended with
   four paragraphs on the controversy over Dow's sponsorship. Sports writer
   Owen Gibson framed that part of the article on budgetary issues for LOCOG.
   On the Dow sponsorship, Gibson noted it would be an agenda item on the
   IOA's upcoming meeting.

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/dec/11/lord-coe-london-2012-youth

   12/12 PTI  reported IOA secretary general Randhir Singh said the question
   of how to \"put forth the sentiments of the people of India against Dow
   Chemical\" will be decided by the IOA General Body at its meeting on
   Thursday. He affirmed India will not boycott the games but the IOA may
   write to the IOC.

   When asked about Coe's statement from Beijing of commitment to Dow's
   sponsorship, Singh said he would not comment.

   \"Asked about IOC chief Jacques Rogge's comments that India should talk to
   the athletes first before thinking of boycotting the Olympics, Randhir
   said, `Gagan Narang has expressed his view and we are talking to the
   athletes.'\" 

   http://www.deccanherald.com/content/211197/gbm-decide-ioas-future-steps.html

   12/12 NDTV reported Satinath Sarangi made a statement today in response to
   Coe's comment in Beijing, and reiterated the gas victims' call for India
   to boycott the games. He called Coe \"a mouthpiece for Dow.\"

   http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/dow-row-bhopal-activist-hits-out-at-london-olympics-organising-committee-chairman-157168 

   12/12 IBNLive posted a 1:49 min video report on the LOCOG and ICJB
   statements, with comment via telephone from Sarangi, who said the gas NGOs
   will meet with the IOA and say, \"get a spine\" and stand up to LOCOG and
   IOC. He said Coe has never asked the gas victims why Dow is still dealing
   with Bhopal-related issues in India.

   http://ibnlive.in.com/news/london-olympics-panel-backs-dow-as-sponsor/210965-2.html 

   12/10 Times of India reported GoI Sports minister Ajay Maken was asked
   about the Dow sponsorship and replied the IOA has been asked to \"stake a
   strong decision on it.\" He also said it was not up to him to protest.

    - This appeared in the sport sections of Hindustan Times and DNA print
   editions on Saturday. The articles were short and positioned below the
   fold.

   http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/events-tournaments/london-olympics/Maken-asks-IOA-to-take-a-strong-decision-on-Dow-issue/articleshow/11049349.cms

   12/12 PTI reported BJP MP Maya Singh brought up in India's Rajya Sabha the
   question of Dow's Olympic sponsorship and asked her fellow legislators to
   join her in calling for India to boycott the Games over the sponsorship.

   http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/events-tournaments/london-olympics/Will-India-take-part-in-Dow-sponsored-Olympics-BJP-asks-Govt/articleshow/11082198.cms

   12/12 London business media City AM reported the Dow sponsorship issue is
   currently \"leading Olympic buzz.\" The analysis came from BT, \"the official
   communications services provider\" for the Games.

   http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/olympic-media-buzz-london-2012-partners-6

   12/10 Ted Jeory reported in Express on Sunday that MP Barry Gardiner is
   claiming LOCOG \"misled\" MPs \"over the savings to be made from the [stadium
   wrap] sponsorship contract\" and \"the entire procurement process is a
   sham.\" Gardiner is reported to be writing to Culture, Media and Sports
   committee chair John Whittingdale about his concerns. The article claimed
   the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) said in October 2010 eliminating the
   wrap would save 7 million pounds, when a vendor had bid the work at about
   1.5 million GBP. \"The suspicion is that Dow...was always the favorite.'

   http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/289238/Dow-s-2012-bid-faces-MPs-probe

   12/11 ANI picked up Ted Jeory's Express on Sunday article about Barry
   Gardiner casting doubt on LOCOG's procurement process and whether Dow was
   \"always the favourite\" for the wrap sponsorship. Half a dozen pickups, DNA
   the only major media.

   http://www.newkerala.com/news/2011/worldnews-124408.html

   12/10 Times of India also reported from Nagpur the stay on transporting
   waste material from the former UCILI factory site has been extended to
   Dec. 19. The stay was extended on a GoI request for more time to file a
   reply to the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board's objections to filing a
   no-objection certificate on the waste material transportation.

   http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Toxic-waste-PIL-deferred-till-Dec-19/articleshow/11053512.cms 

   12/10 IBNS posted a new ICJB press statement announcing the gas NGOs
   marked International Human Rights Day with a march to the MP governor's
   house and presented a memo with six demands relative to the human rights
   of the gas victims. Full text of the press statement, the letter to the
   governor, and the list of demands are attached.

   http://www.indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsPage/2011/newsDetails101211n.php

    

   12/11 IANS reported a Madhya Pradesh government website for the Bhopal gas
   tragedy relief and rehabilitation department \"shows old figures\" regarding
   the compensation paid to gas victims. The article noted the gas NGOs
   demands for \"correct\" figures to be used for compensation calculation.
   Sadhna Karnik of the Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahyog Samiti said the
   website content is indicative of \"the duel standards of the government\"
   and criticized both the Congress and BJP parties for \"playing with the
   emotions of the Bhopal tragedy survivors.\"

   About 15 pickups seen, including Hindustan Times, Economic Times,
   TwoCircles.net and Indian Gazette.

   http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Bhopal/Government-website-on-Bhopal-gas-tragedy-shows-old-figures/Article1-780540.aspx 

   12/11 Guardian/Observer websites in the UK reported architectural (or
   maybe just art) critic Rowan Moore included the decorative wrap of the
   Olympic stadium on a list of the worst architectural ideas of 2011. He
   called the wrap \"pointless [and] supplied courtesy of the
   Bhopal-implicated Dow Chemical Company.\"

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/dec/11/best-architecture-2011-rowan-moore 

   On the activist side,

   12/11  Rachna Dhingra emailed the ICJB press statement about their Human
   Rights Day observances and included a link to a song written to describe
   the \"human rights violations\" visited upon the protesters at the rail roko
   demonstration. The post on YouTube is nearly 10 minutes long and is
   accompanied by a repetitive slide show of images from the rail roko and
   other commonly used photos from Bhopal.

   12/11 Farah Edwards Khan has made quite the push on Twitter to promote
   Lorraine Close's petition to Lord Coe, which currently has about 10,500
   signatures. \"Fareeta\" tweeted about the petition to at least 30 Twitter
   users including Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinam and Naomi Klein.

   She also tweeted on Friday \"all very quiet on the Dow stadium wrap. is
   this the calm before the storm.\"

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-12-12 17:41:32",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/404322_bhopal-update-12-12-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
404472,"Bhopal update - 12-14-11 IOA media PM
","   Scot, Tomm,

   Wall Street Journal, BBC, Telegraph, Around The Rings, Morning Star and
   Associated Press all issued reports on Malhotra's statement this morning
   that IOA will call for Dow's Olympic sponsorship to be dropped.

   WSJ reported on the impending IOA meeting, Malhotra's comment about a
   \"tainted company\" being an \"unacceptable\" Olympic sponsor, and Dow's
   position on the Bhopal issue.

   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203893404577098430687092216.html

   BBC reported on the IOA's call for Dow's sponsorship to be dropped, but it
   \"stopped short of boycotting the Games, that LOCOG and Coe are
   \"comfortable\" with the sponsorship and his statement to that end, the
   effigy burning in Bhopal, and quoted Keith Wiggins as part of Dow's
   position on the Bhopal issue.

   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16190673

   Telegraph (UK) reporter Jacquelin Magnay wrote in the context of British
   MPs and celebrities calling for LOCOG to withdraw Dow's sponsorship, and
   supporting the campaign by signing the most active petition (although not
   identified as Lorrain Close's change.org effort). Malhotra's statement
   from this morning is included, prefacing comments by Gardiner questioning
   LOCOG's procurement process. The Sustainability Commission's findings
   validating the process are also noted. The article ends with two lists of
   names, about 20 celebrities and 28 politicians, who have signed on to
   support the campaign against Dow.

   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/8956176/London-2012-Olympics-British-politicians-demand-London-drops-Dow-as-Olympic-Stadium-sponsor.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

   Associated Press issued a short wire report that is very similar to the
   initial PTI article this morning in quotes from Malhotra on the Olympic
   ideals of \"love, brotherhood and transparency.\" It briefly described the
   Bhopal gas accident, Dow's position regarding it and Coe's support of Dow
   as an Olympic sponsor. The piece ends by noting Gardiner indicated \"the
   Indian committee's opposition should lead organizers to rethink the
   sponsorship plans.\"

   True to form for an AP release, there have been about 100 pickups since
   early afternoon, mainly in the US and including ABC News, CBS News,
   Washington Post, Washington Examiner, Boston Globe, San Francisco
   Chronicle, Seattle Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Minneapolis
   Star-Tribune, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, CBS Marketwatch, SI.com, CNN,
   Yahoo! News, Breitbart, Salon.com, Huffington Post, and numerous broadcast
   and regional media outlets.

   http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/india-olympic-body-london-games-cut-dow-15154756

   Around the Rings reported from the AFP article, quoting Malhotra as
   planning to \"express our displeasure\" to LOCOG and ask for Dow's
   sponsorship to be dropped. Both Dow and the activist positions are stated
   briefly. IOC secretary general Randhir Singh said the \"sentiments of the
   people...cannot be ignored.\" Sher Khan's call for boycotting the Games is
   included, as is Malhotra's assurance of no boycott.

   http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=38784

   Morning Star, UK communist media, quoted from the initial PTI report and
   titled it: \"India asks London to throw out Dow.\" Malhotra's intent for the
   IOA to coordinate with the GoI on the issue is included, as is Dow's
   position on the Bhopal issue, and Coe's support of Dow as an Olympic
   sponsor. The piece ends by noting Tessa Jowell's position that \"Dow should
   withdraw from sponsorship of the wrap.\"

   http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/113146

   The Guardian reported Barry Gardiner has written to Culture, Media and
   Sport minister John Whittingdale calling for an \"urgent inquiry\" into the
   stadium wrap procurement process. Gardiner contended \"a simple Google
   search would have revealed numerous other cases that showed that Dow could
   only be a significant reputational risk to the London 2012 Games.\" The
   article simply noted \"demonstrations\" against Dow's sponsorship have
   occurred, and the IOA said it will ask LOCOG to drop Dow's sponsorship.

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/dec/14/london-2012-dow-chemical-mp-inquiry

   IANS issued a brief quote from Aslam Sher Khan from a telephone contact,
   in which he sympathized with the Olympic athletes for wanting to make use
   of their training investments, but \"being a Bhopali,\" believed India
   should not participate in an Olympics with Dow sponsorship. Very limited
   pickup seen.

   http://sports.ndtv.com/othersports/othersports/item/182405-dont-participate-in-london-olympics-aslam-sher-khan

   Other media today include:

    - IBNS hosted an online chat with Satinath Sarangi and Rachna Dhingra on
   the Dow sponsorship and \"India's stance.\" The Dec. 12 discussion covered
   about two dozen questions from participants. Sarangi and Dhingra's answers
   are not surprising and do not reveal any new information.

   http://ibnlive.in.com/chat/view/764.html

    - PTI and UNI reported on Nagpur MP Muttemwar's concern over the GoI plan
   to dispose of the Bhopal factory waste at the DRDO facility, and that he
   has written to PM Singh to \"draw his attention towards the issue.\"

   PTI 
   http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/wire-news/planned-incinerationbhopal-toxic-wastenagpur-opposed_633525.html

   UNI 
   http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Muttemwar-opposes-Bhopal-toxins-entry/articleshow/11101735.cms

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-12-14 22:58:14",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/404472_bhopal-update-12-14-11-ioa-media-pm-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
404643,"Re: CORP: Bhopal 25 coming up
","   Maybe the Yes Men were the pinnacle.  They made an argument in their way
   on their terms -- that this is a corporate problem and a part of the a
   larger whole that the Yes Men work.  They're the only anti-corporate group
   that has joined with the Bhopal groups.

   Where is SCI or RAN or even Greenpeace on this?  On one hand, the EHF
   folks haven't found a way to branch out beyond occasional AI mentions, but
   at the same time, the larger anti-corporate movement has avoided Bhopal
   very nicely.  Will Chevron get the same pass? 

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: \"Joseph de Feo\" <defeo@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Bart Mongoven\" <mongoven@stratfor.com>
   Cc: \"Kathleen Morson\" <morson@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, November 9, 2009 11:06:36 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
   Subject: Re: CORP: Bhopal 25 coming up

   The professional anti-Dow types have made a slight nod toward expanded
   activity, but never followed through on it -- the idea of \"other Bhopals\"
   that were the fault of Dow or others. For the past few years it has mostly
   just been a spot on a website occasionally updated with a blog post about
   different multinationals elsewhere in India (e.g., the SIPCOT work by the
   Global Community Monitor affiliates). Now I don't even think blog posts go
   up there anymore.

   One area in which you might argue the Dow campaign has been successful was
   in the R&D site battle outside Pune. Dow had to change its plans. But that
   wasn't really a result of the Bhopal-based activists' strategic skills; it
   seems they mostly provided one more weapon (the Bhopal issue) and likely
   some small amount of funding that helped propel/prolong a campaign that
   was going to be difficult for Dow just because of the religious
   associations of the area near the site  and political gain to be had by
   pandering to some locals in an election year. The Dow people could try to
   repeat that elsewhere, but I'm not sure they'd find the perfect storm
   again.

   The Yes Men had their London \"B'eau Pal\" stunt in London, but again, that
   wasn't any indication of an expansion. Same issue and complaints,
   statement urging people to check out the Bhopal Medical Appeal.

   Bart Mongoven wrote:

     We're only a month away from the 25th anniversary of Bhopal.  The
     objective of the Dow Campaign, as far as I can tell, has been the same
     as the upcoming RAN Chevron campaign -- to make an impossible demand
     upon a major multinational in order to bring attention to the
     fundamental problems with laws relating to corporate accountability. 

     With less than a month to go, you'd think that the major players --
     especially Amnesty -- would have branched out from Bhopal to make a
     broader set of issues.  I don't see any evidence of it.  AI Canada
     included Bhopal in a Demand Dignity release in September.  The
     intenrational secretariat has a small link on its website.  That's all
     I've seen outside of the dedicated anti-Dow establishment -- those
     groups paid to hate Dow (PANNA, SfB). 

     The anger is legitimate and the campaign framing has been done pretty
     well.  If they can't manage to use the 25th anniversary to broaden the
     issue, they probably won't be able to.  They may as well just let Dow or
     some proxy clean the site because keeping the site unremediated hasn't
     helped the anti-corproate cause; hasn't much helped the anti-Dow cause;
     and probably isn't doing a heck of a lot of good for the Bhopalis on
     whose behalf the activists claim to be working.

     The Chevron campaign is remarkably similar in its unrealistic demand. 
     Is it a follow up or an admission that the first thrust failed?

     Am I missing a node of activity or a major campaign that is to come? 
     Has the Dow campaign been more successful than I think?
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/404643_re-corp-bhopal-25-coming-up-.html","mongoven@stratfor.com","","morson@stratfor.com,defeo@stratfor.com",""
404678,"Bhopal update - 12-06-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   The Reuters article reported earlier does not appear to have gotten much
   more pickup at this time.

   In other media

    - Channel 4 News posted a brief article and video report on India
   protesting Dow's Olympic sponsorship. The text article contained the basic
   items about the IOA, LOCOG and Dow statements. The video, however included
   an approximately 4-minute interview of Tessa Jowell by Channel 4 news
   reader Jon Snow. Snow asked if Jowell had \"seen this problem coming,\" to
   which she replied by describing events of her trip to India last week.
   Jowell was to have spoken at a sports conference but was cancelled, she
   thinks because the GoI was afraid she would use that platform to talk
   about Bhopal and Dow. She said she would not have done so.

   Jowell said she met with \"a number of people who are concerned, including
   the senior counsel for the Indian government on the Indian Olympic
   Association issue and the five NGOs.\"

   Snow prompted her about the original question, and Jowell began to list
   \"options,\" including that Dow could withdraw since the wrap was only to
   \"enhance the appearance of the stadium for television.\" On further
   prompting, she admitted she did not know about the sponsorship until
   September and has \"been pursuing it ever since.\"

   http://www.channel4.com/news/indian-government-protests-dow-olympic-sponsorship

   India's Siaset Daily posted a lengthy article by Pervez Bari about Aslam
   Sher Khan making statements to the press about writing to Sonia Gandhi,
   Barry Gardiner, Keith Vaz and Tessa Jowell about the Dow sponsorship. The
   letter to Gandhi, which was copied to \"all the members of the Congress
   Working Committee,\" called for IOA to make a formal protest to LOCOG. To
   the British MPs, Sher Khan offered his support and had a reply from Vaz.
   He called for Indian MPs to \"take up the issue,\" as have the UK MPs, and
   claimed he would \"not hesitate to don the (anti-corruption) role of Anna
   Hazare in getting proper justice to the victims and survivors....\" He also
   said he will bring up the Bhopal issue \"in a big way at the former
   Olympians meeting\" as part of the Dec. 15 IOA meeting.

    - PTI and UNI also reported more briefly from Sher Khan's press event.

   http://www.siasat.com/english/news/ex-olympian-aslam-sher-writes-sonia-dow-chemical-sponsorship-london-olympics

   Business Standard reported IOA executive board members C P Singh Deo and
   Parsh Nath Mukherjee said the Dow sponsorship issue is not on the agenda
   for the IOA's 12/15 meeting, that the issue is being handled by the
   government and is not up to the IOA to address.

   http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/dow-as-games-sponsor-no-reason-to-boycott-olympics/457726/

   The UK's Guardian reported both Rachna Dhingra and Barry Gardiner made
   statements about the IOA's message to the IOC. Dhingra said the NGOs had
   asked for that action six months ago, and \"welcome it, but it needs to go
   further.\" Gardiner said the GoI and IOA \"have done the right thing by
   standing up to Dow's involvement.... LOCOG must realize that this issue
   will not go away, and the longer they leave the decision to kick out Dow
   the larger the protests will grow.\"

   No online article, full text available on request.

   The Guardian also published a commentary by Richard Williams criticizing
   the stadium wrap, Dow's sponsorship and quoting BMA activist Lorraine
   Close in describing contaminated water and surroundings in Bhopal. Readers
   are encouraged to sign Close's change.org petition asking Lord Coe to drop
   Dow's sponsorship.

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/dec/05/london-olympics-dow-bhopal-legacy?newsfeed=true

   Several Indian media outlets published further reporting on the IOA's
   statement on Monday to the IOC and LOCOG:

    - Telegraph India reported the part of the concern over Dow's sponsorship
   is its position as an IOC partner through the 2020 Games, for which India
   had planned to bid. It also reported the letter to IOA from the Sports
   ministry was written by Rahul Bhatnagar, a joint secretary at the
   ministry.

   http://www.telegraphindia.com/1111206/jsp/nation/story_14844874.jsp

    - The Hindu and NDTV also reported India would like to bid to host a
   future Games, and has asked the \"Indian mission in London to get more
   details from the organizers\" about Dow's sponsorship. Hindu noted Liveris
   is an India-US CEO Forum member, \"but has stayed away from the
   meetings...due to the sensitivities involved.\"

   Hindu  http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2689249.ece

   NDTV 
   http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/dows-olympics-sponsorship-row-govt-can-take-up-the-issue-if-needed-says-maken-155693

    - Times of India and PTI reported Sports Minister A J Maken urged the IOC
   to \"consider the sentiments\" involving Bhopal and Dow, said he \"won't let
   Bhopal down,\" and that it \"would be embarrassing that on one hand we are
   asking for extradition of [Warren Anderons] and on the other hand we are
   partnering with those people.\"

   ToI 
   http://www.timesnow.tv/Wont-let-Bhopal-down-says-Maken/articleshow/4390681.cms

   PTI 
   http://news.oneindia.in/2011/12/06/consider-sentiments-of-bhopal-gas-victims-maken-to-ioc.html

   Express News Service, SportzPower, Economic Times and the Statesman also
   posted reports on the IOA statement.

   CNN-IBN reported the Madhya Pradesh Human Rights Commission criticized the
   MP government for the \"police brutality on protesting Bhopal gas victims\"
   and asked to be given a detailed report on the violence.

   http://ibnlive.in.com/news/hrc-pulls-up-mp-govt-for-lathicharge-on-gas-victims/209115-3.html

   IBNS reported the ICJB issued a press statement condemning the violence at
   the rail roko and stating they will perform their own enquiry into the
   matter, \"presided over by a retired judge of the High Court or Supreme
   Court.\" They have called again for the release of all 14 men still in
   police custody and said they will help survivors \"gather evidence and
   initiate formal proceedings against those responsible for the violence,
   including the police.\" The NGOs apologized to the media people who were
   injured. The article was not available for online access, full text
   available on request.

   The Pioneer, however, reported Abdul Jabbar and the BGPMUS said the ICJB
   NGOs are partly responsible for Saturday's violence. He criticized the
   state government for not fulfilling projects and programs it promised to
   the gas victims.

   http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/25751-organisations-divided-over-rail-roko-incident.html

   A second Pioneer article reported Congress Party Member of Parliament
   (Ujjain) Premchand Guddu filed a memorandum with the MP government saying
   the state is \"responsible for all that happened on Saturday.\" He said the
   police and state officials had plenty of prior notice the rail roko was
   planned.

   http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/25749-cong-mp-demands-high-level-probe-into-rail-roko-incident.html

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-12-06 19:28:35",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/404678_bhopal-update-12-06-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
406677,"Bhopal update - 04-21-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   There does not appear to be new media on the SC hearings on the curative
   petitions.

   -       The Times News Network papers reported people in India seeking
   compensation from companies will have to pay 1% of the amount being
   sought, to the GoI's Environment Ministry as a fee for the National Green
   Tribunal. The article used the Bhopal gas accident victims as an example.
   People who fall below the Poverty Line will not be subject to the fees.

   http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/environment/pollution/victims-to-pay-for-demanding-compensation-from-polluters/articleshow/8042532.cms

   -       Daily News & Analysis reported \"[Shiv] Sena has a history of
   hijacking issues\" to suit the party's own ends. This article actually
   reports on the Jaitapur Nuclear Power Plant issue, not the WikiLeaks
   exposure of alleged Shiv Sena involvement with Dow's Pune R&D center
   project. However, the R&D center issue is used as an example of the party
   \"hijacking\" issues.

   http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_shiv-sena-has-history-of-hijacking-issues_1534249

   -       The Hindu reported several well-known activists, including Bhopal
   NGO leader Satinath Sarangi, are going to be on a \"yatra\" from Tarapur to
   Jaitapur on April 23-25 as an anti-nuclear protest.

   http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1707645.ece

   -       Huntington News, a WV media outlet, published a review of Diane
   Wilson's new book,  Diary of an Eco-Outlaw. The book is said to include a
   description of her \"Bhopal protest\" of climbing a cooling tower at Dow's
   Seadrift plant in 2002.

   http://www.huntingtonnews.net/3439

   In activist resources:

   -       ICJB activist Dharmesh Shah emailed to the group's distribution
   lists the 4/19 Hindustan Times article on the Nationalist Congress Party
   calling for an investigation of Shiv Sena MP Shivajirao Adhalrao Patil
   over WikiLeaks reporting he was \"involved\" with Dow on establishing the
   Pune R&D center project.

   -       ICJB's India co-ordinator Rachna Dhingra is scheduled to return to
   the US as a keynote speaker for the AID US annual conference on May 28-30
   in Boston. There is only one session specifically noted so far where she
   will speak, on Saturday, May 28. The topic is \"Justice for Bhopal.\"

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-04-21 19:54:56",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/406677_bhopal-update-04-21-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
407397,"FW: Client working list
","","2011-04-23 16:48:48",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/407397_fw-client-working-list-.html","kuykendall@stratfor.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com","attach/5/5728_image001.png
attach/37/37035_client list.xls"
407784,"DOW CONFIDENTIAL: Bhopal Monitoring Report Friday, November 18, 2011
","Contact AIM for more Information                                                                                                                                                                                             
Significant Activist Activity                                                                                                                                                                                                
 11/14 Bhopal, Chennai press events announce ICJB petition to LOCOG signed by 22 Indian ex-Olympians                                                                                                                         
 11/15 BMA/Amnesty/Labour Friends of India press event in London opposed Dow sponsorship                                                                                                                                     
 11/16-17 BMA: Heavily tweeted link to Guardian poll \"Should Olympic chiefs dump Dow?\"                                                                                                                                       
 PAN Int'l \"people's tribunal\" 12/3-6 to \"indict\" agrichemical companies for \"gross violations of human rights\"                                                                                                              
Media                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
 Olympics sponsorship media summary                                                                                                                                                                                          
 11/14 AP, India media: Bhopal, Chennai press conferences by ex-Olympians opposing Dow sponsorship                                                                                                                           
 11/15-18 Global media: London Olympics - Coe defends LOCOG, Dow; BMA et al press event opposes sponsorship                                                                                                                  
 11/15-18 Local media: MDN, MLive, WNEM; UK local letters and columns                                                                                                                                                        
 11/14 Saginaw News: Reporter questions whether Bhopal \"shadow\" affects Dow                                                                                                                                                  
 11/12 Hindustan Times: GoI cancelled registrations for four Dow Agrosciences products                                                                                                                                       
 11/15 Ummid: Pervez Bari article on Olympics and standing activist allegations against Dow                                                                                                                                  
 11/18 IANS, Telegraph: Greenpeace, \"Bhopal survivors\" object to new nuclear civil liabilities rules                                                                                                                         
 11/14 Asian Voice: Keith Vaz interview of Colin Toogood on Bhopal and BMA                                                                                                                                                   
 11/14-11/17 Independent, Socialist Party UK: BMHRC drug trials commentary                                                                                                                                                   
 11/17 Hard News: activist RTI requests GoI documents on Anderson extradition                                                                                                                                                
 11/18 Derby Evening Telegraph: Animal's People review                                                                                                                                                                       
Activist Activity                                                                                                                                                                                                            
 Bhopali film: Screenings scheduled in Amsterdam, Toronto, London, NYC, Pittsburgh, Boston                                                                                                                                   
 ICJB website: new front page layout; Rail Roko information/justification                                                                                                                                                    
 BMA website: media items on Dow's Olympic sponsorship; play day for Chingari Trust children                                                                                                                                 
 Amnesty: Bhopal presentation slides for Group 133; Annual Write-A-Thon on Dec. 11                                                                                                                                           
 Change.org petition now over 1,000 signatures                                                                                                                                                                               
 Activist email: Dhingra, Edwards send media items to Remember-Bhopal list                                                                                                                                                   
 AID: new chapter at George Washington Univ.                                                                                                                                                                                 
 Message boards: Games Monitor; Chennai and Delhi enviro groups                                                                                                                                                              
 Blogs: BMA volunteer Ian Jarvis updates on life at clinic                                                                                                                                                                   
 Social media: BMA Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube; anti-Dow Olympics Facebook                                                                                                                                                
 Yes Men: Yes Lab actions at APEC in Hawai'i; Bonanno to conduct Yes Lab in Sweden 12/14-16; Mark Rudd at Yes Lab 11/17                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/14 Bhopal, Chennai press events announce ICJB petition to LOCOG signed by 22 Indian ex-Olympians                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
The International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal and former Indian Olympic hockey players coordinated press conferences in Bhopal and Chennai to announce at least 22 athletes had signed the ICJB's petition to Olympics    
officials and PM Singh calling for Dow's Olympic sponsorship to be dropped, or for India to boycott the London Games.                                                                                                        
The ICJB press statement quoted representatives of the five Bhopal activist groups & NGOs - Safreen Khan, Rachna Dhingra, Rashida Bee, Balkrishna Namdeo and Nawab Khan.                                                     
The Olympians statement recommended: \"national and international Olympians should oppose the unholy alliance with the poisoner of Bhopal.\" The Olympians who participated in the press conferences were:                     
 - In Bhopal: Inam - Ur - Rehman, B P Govinda, Syed Ali and Jalaluddin Rizvi.                                                                                                                                                
 - In Chennai: Vasudevan Baskaran and Charles Cornelius                                                                                                                                                                      
The AP and Indian media reported on the press conferences, as indicated in the media section below.                                                                                                                          
The ICJB's press statement, the petition addressed to Olympic officials, and the list of athletes who have signed it are attached.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/15 BMA/Amnesty/Labour Friends of India press event in London opposed Dow sponsorship                                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Bhopal Medical Appeal, Amnesty Int'l and the Labour Friends of India held a press event in London to publicize their opposition to Dow's Olympic stadium wrap sponsorship.                                                   
A preview of the press release was posted on Google Docs and distributed a few days prior via Twitter to several media and activist contacts.                                                                                
BMA tweeted the link to 11 other Twitter users: NDTV; Olympics watchdog blog Games Monitor and its administrator Julian Cheyne; anti-corporate activists Adbusters; environmental and legal activists EarthRights            
International; environmental/anti-pesticide contacts: This Is Ecocide; Shift Soil; No Mo Pesticides; Pesty Pesticides; and AntiDrifters; and the London Olympics Information account (The announcement tweet not displayed   
on that page).                                                                                                                                                                                                               
The press release was phrased in quite inflammatory terms, including the title of \"Growing scandal over Olympic stadium sponsor\" and that Dow \"having been recently found guilty of SERIOUS MALPRACTICE [emphasis            
theirs]...cannot be considered an appropriate sponsor of the London Olympics stadium.\"                                                                                                                                       
Representatives of the \"cross-party\" coalition appearing at the event were MP and Labour Friends of India leader Barry Gardiner, and Tim and Farah Edwards of BMA. The press release promised \"the great-great-granddaughter 
of the last \"Begum of Bhopal (the Bhopal Royal Family) and herself a survivor of the Bhopal disaster.\" This is presumably Mrs. Edwards.                                                                                      
Considerable global media coverage of the press conference ensued, much of it folded into reports on Lord Coe's testimony before Parliament's Culture, Media and Sports Committee, as indicated in the media reporting       
below.                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
The activist coalition press statement is attached.                                                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/16-17 BMA: Heavily tweeted link to Guardian poll \"Should Olympic chiefs dump Dow?\"                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
UK media the Guardian posted an online poll in its sports section asking \"Should Olympic chiefs dump Dow?\"                                                                                                                   
BMA sent numerous tweets urging recipients to \"Vote to dump Dow\" on the poll, sending more than 50 messages in a few hours, and several more before the poll closed.                                                         
Final poll results: 91.6% thought Dow should be removed as a sponsor.                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Three comments were also posted on the poll page, all critical of Dow. One of the comments was from Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN-UK), which named EDF as another Olympic sponsor considered \"dodgy.\"                     
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/poll/2011/nov/15/olympics-2012-dow?fb=native                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
PAN Int'l \"people's tribunal\" 12/3-6 to \"indict\" agrichemical companies for \"gross violations of human rights\"                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/16 The Ecologist, a member of the UK's Guardian media network, reported Pesticide Action Network Int'l announced a \"Permanent People's Tribunal\" (PPT) session will be held from Dec. 3-6 \"to indict Agrochemical         
Transnationals for gross violations of human rights.\"                                                                                                                                                                        
The targeted companies and organizations are:                                                                                                                                                                                
Dow, Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer CropSciences, Syngenta, BASF, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization.                                                                                
PAN has a website dedicated to the PPT session, with a case summary and a petition to sign with a goal of 10,000 signatures by Dec. 3. The petition currently has about 430 signatures.                                      
This refers visitors to PAN Asia Pacific contact and social media resources. The case summary is attached.                                                                                                                   
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1122020/monsanto_bayer_and_dow_face_trial_for_systematic_human_rights_abuses.html                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/17  PAN UK posted similar documents with a few more details, including giving Bangalore, India as the location for the PPT session, and identifying some \"legal experts\" and scientists who are named to the \"jury.\"      
These are Gurdial Singh Nijjar, Director of the Centre of Excellence for Biodiversity Law at the University Malaya; Pananchand Jain, retired Rajasthan High Court Justice; and Upendra Baxi, former President of the Indian  
Society of International Law.[and] scientists and experts such as Dr. Ricarda A. Steinbrecher, a biologist and geneticist with the German Federation of Scientists.\"                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/18 PAN North America (PANNA) also posted an announcement and executive summary of the planned PPT. The executive summary is closest in format and content to the PAN UK version, with the main exception of offering      
U.S.-based individuals as available for interviews:                                                                                                                                                                          
 - Kathyrn Gilje, PANNA co-director                                                                                                                                                                                          
 - Jeannie Economos, Farmworker Association of Florida                                                                                                                                                                       
 - Paige Tomaselli, Center for Food Safety                                                                                                                                                                                   
 - Viola Waghiyi, Alaska Community Action on Toxics                                                                                                                                                                          
 - Ana Duncan Pardo, Toxic Free NC                                                                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Any or all of the remaining documents are available on request.                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Olympics sponsorship media summary                                                                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Global media reporting on Dow's sponsorship of the London Olympic stadium wrap ran heavily from Monday, 11/14, through Wednesday, 11/16. Reports began with the Indian activist and athletes press events in Bhopal and      
Chennai, then moved to London with reports first on Lord Coe's testimony before Parliament's Culture, Media and Sport committee, and followed by the \"cross-party\" activist coalition press event.                           
 - Associated Press reports led the rmedia all three days, with global pickups each time. Washington Post, Boston Globe, NBC Sports and FOX Sports were the main U.S. major media outlets to use the piece. Regional leading 
media pickups include Detroit News, San Francisco Chronicle, along with numerous U.S. and Canadian broadcast and media websites.  The initial report from London contained an error, stating Dow had purchased the Union     
Carbide plant in Bhopal in 2001. An updated version of the story corrected the statement.                                                                                                                                    
 - UK major media the Independent, Guardian, BBC and Channel 4 reported on the London events, as did wire services UK Press Association, PTI, IANS and ANI, and UK communist media Morning Star.                             
 - Agence France Presse issued a wire story, but received limited pickup.                                                                                                                                                    
 - The Hindu was the only Indian major media to publish a print report on the London events.                                                                                                                                 
 - Several video reports on the London events were broadcast, including Channel 4, Al Jazeera, and NewsXLive. These invariably began with the activist coalition event at the Olympic stadium, and included on-camera        
comments from Barry Gardiner, Farah or Tim Edwards.                                                                                                                                                                          
 - IOC news website Around The Rings has published updates on the events, as well.                                                                                                                                           
 - Local pickups included Midland Daily News, MLive.com and WNEM television.                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/14 AP, India media: Bhopal, Chennai press conferences by ex-Olympians opposing Dow sponsorship                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Associated Press reported \"at least 21\" Indian Olympians called for LOCOG to drop Dow's sponsorship, calling it \"offensive to the spirit of the Olympic Games.\" The only person quoted by AP was Safreen Khan of Children    
Against Dow-Carbide, who said \"hundreds of children are being born disabled\" and blamed Dow for the lack of remediation in Bhopal. LOCOG was noted as standing firm on the Dow sponsorship, and Dow's position on the Bhopal 
issue was given. The article noted Dow's India office referred inquiries to the US headquarters.                                                                                                                             
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/45284750                                                                                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
IBNS issued the closest iteration of the ICJB press release, as usual. Three Olympians appeared at the press conference in Bhopal: \"Inam - Ur - Rehman, B P Govinda, Syed Ali and Jalaluddin Rizvi,\" and said, \"national and 
international Olympians should oppose the unholy alliance with the poisoner of Bhopal. \"                                                                                                                                     
Representatives of the five Bhopal activist groups & NGOs were quoted - Safreen Khan, Rachna Dhingra, Rashida Bee, Balkrishna Namdeo and Nawab Khan. Bee said neither PM Singh's office nor the Indian Olympic Association   
have responded or acted on the ICJB's request that they contact LOCOG and demand Dow's sponsorship be dropped.                                                                                                               
http://www.newkerala.com/news/2011/worldnews-106332.html                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
PTI reported from Chennai that Hockey Olympians Vasudevan Baskaran and Charles Cornelius held a press conference in conjunction with the ICJB's press event in Bhopal.                                                       
http://www.newkerala.com/news/2011/worldnews-106332.html                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
UNI quoted Bhopal activist leader Sarangi, saying it is \"unfortunate\" neither the GoI or \"IOC\" [mistake for IOA?] were taking any action, while UK MPs are protesting the sponsorship. He also said efforts are being made   
to \"rope in more Olympians - including from other countries - in the campaign to protest Dow's sponsorship.\"                                                                                                                 
http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20111114/1871539.html                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Yahoo! India News posted a video report by NBS News of the Bhopal press conference. The 1:45 minute clip showed several men sitting at a table in front of microphones while the reporter voice over explained the           
situation. Sarangi and \"sports person\" Syed Ali were interviewed on camera but both spoke in Hindi. The clip is titled \"Bhopal tragedy shadow over London Olympics.\"                                                         
http://in.news.yahoo.com/video/national-22564751/bhopal-tragedy-shadow-over-london-olympics-27248836.html#crsl=%252Fvideo%252Fnational-22564751%252Fbhopal-tragedy-shadow-over-london-olympics-27248836.html                 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Around the Rings posted a report on the press conferences.                                                                                                                                                                   
http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=38505                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
UK communist media Morning Star included the Indian Olympians petition information in a report on Olympics security concerns.                                                                                                
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/111936                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/15 Four print editions of Indian papers had short articles, mainly sourced from PTI, on the press conferences, all located in the Sports sections and positioned below the fold: Hindustan Times' New Delhi and           
Chandigarh editions, Asian Age New Delhi edition, and the Pioneer New Delhi edition.                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/15 ANI issued similar wire and video reports on the press conferences. Two former Olympic hockey players were interviewed, with English subtitles on their comments in Hindi, including if Dow has enough money for       
Olympic sponsorships, they should compensate the Bhopal gas victims. A photo of Warren Anderson and others from the 1984 gas accident were at the end over audio stating Dow purchased UCC in 2001.                          
The statements from the two men were included in the ANI print report.                                                                                                                                                       
Text: http://in.news.yahoo.com/ex-indian-olympians-voice-anger-over-dow-chemicals-061826174.html                                                                                                                             
Video: http://www.indianexpress.com/video/sports/22/indian-olympians-slam-dow/6602                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/16 The Hindu and Times of India published reports on Monday's press conferences. The ToI article inferred the 1984 gas tragedy played a part in Bhopal producing fewer star hockey players than prior to the accident,    
and quoted Salim Abassi about not recovering from the gas effects that \"may have cut short\" his athletic career.                                                                                                             
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/Hockey-stars-decry-DOW-move-to-sponsor-Olympics/articleshow/10749075.cms                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/15-18 Global media: London Olympics - Coe defends LOCOG, Dow; BMA et al press event opposes sponsorship                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
AP reported Lord Coe testified at a Parliament hearing of the Culture, Media and Sport committee and stated LOCOG's commitment to and confidence in Dow as an Olympic sponsor and its ethics. This report did not mention    
the planned activist protest in London. Global pickups trended through mid-day U.S. time to more than 100 pickups.                                                                                                           
http://news.yahoo.com/london-olympic-organizers-wont-scrap-dow-deal-145242640.html                                                                                                                                           
 - An update was issued mid-afternoon to correct the third sentence stating Dow purchased the UCIL factory in Bhopal in 2001.                                                                                                
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/11/15/sports/s065232S11.DTL&type=business                                                                                                                              
 - A shorter version was also seen: http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/london-olympic-organizers-wont-scrap-dow-deal/e9f9eec28189496ba544ed04469c081f                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Several other sources issued reports, including BBC, AFP, the UK Press Association (UKAP), Channel 4, Guardian, the Labour Party and Morning Star UK.                                                                        
BBC issued two articles, one primarily on Coe's Parliamentary testimony to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the other on the activist protest and press release.                                                      
-   The Coe article included a brief background on Dow, the stadium wrap and Dow's purchase of UCC. Coe stated his satisfaction that Dow did not have any functional connection to the UCIL facility, and the Indian Supreme 
Court \"upheld on two previous occasions\" the validity of UCC's settlement for the Bhopal gas accident. Keith Vaz and Tessa Jowell voicing their concerns to Coe was also noted. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15745449  
-   The protest article is longer and quoted Sarangi for the Bhopal Group for Information and Action (BGIA), former Olympic hockey player Aslam Sher Khan, and unidentified Dow and Games 2012 spokespersons. Sarangi called 
Dow's sponsorship \"an dance on the graves of Bhopal gas victims\" and promised \"protest rallies in Bhopal, Delhi and London if necessary.\" Khan said India should \"lodge a strong protest,\" and he had written to the Indian  
Olympic Association, PM Singh and the Sports ministry.                                                                                                                                                                       
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14443516                                                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Agence France Presse reported Coe \"defended\" the Dow sponsorship, stated 15,000 as the death toll from the Bhopal gas tragedy, and that \"Dow bought Union Carbide in 2001 and has ever since denied responsibility\" for the  
gas accident. The opposition by \"several Indian athletes\" and Jowell's \"concern\" preface a quote from Coe that he is \"the grandson of an Indian so I am not completely unaware\" of the Bhopal issue, but stands by the       
sponsorship. Times of India is the only known pickup of this article at this time.                                                                                                                                           
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/events-tournaments/london-olympics/Olympics-Coe-defends-Dow-deal-in-face-of-Bhopal-protests/articleshow/10744820.cms                                                               
 - UK Press Association's version was very similar to the AFP wire report.                                                                                                                                                   
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jbFhQthLXTmph8I12FZbBxBxBa-Q?docId=B35046781321366580A00                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Channel 4 UK news provided background on the wrap deal, the Bhopal accident and Dow's position on Bhopal. It introduced the campaign by a \"cross-party coalition of MPs, survivors and Indian Olympians\" opposing Dow's      
sponsorship, and mentioned the IOC's support of the sponsorship. MP Barry Gardiner, Chair of Labour Friends of India, and the leader of the activist coalition admitted LOCOG \"had set high environmental, social and        
ethical standards,\" but called the Dow contract decision \"a mistake and it must be set right.\"  This article tried to name the Dow spokesperson \"Scott Walker\" as the source of Dow's position statement.                    
http://www.channel4.com/news/row-over-olympic-sponsors-bhopal-links                                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
The Guardian posted a report on the wrap sponsorship issue and an online sports poll asking \"Should Olympic chiefs ditch Dow?\"  .                                                                                            
The article drew mainly from Coe's hearing testimony and questions from other MPs. Coe told the panel he had met with Vaz and Jowell, but \"insisted he had not heard anything\" from the Indian Olympic Committee about a     
potential boycott by India's athletes. Conservative MP Louise Mensch called LOCOG's decision on the Dow sponsorship \"very worrying,\" to which Coe responded LOCOG had \"looked at the issue very carefully\" and cited Dow's   
IOC global partner status.                                                                                                                                                                                                   
MP Steve Rotheram asked \"whether Dow could be replaced if the company did the 'honourable thing' and withdrew from sponsoring the wrap, the Locog chief executive, Paul Deighton, said it was 'getting very late' to do so   
and had no indication that the company would pull out.\"                                                                                                                                                                      
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/nov/15/olympic-dow-sponsorship-protests-mps http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/poll/2011/nov/15/olympics-2012-dow?newsfeed=true                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
The Labour Party reported just Tessa Jowell's three points of concern she says \"Dow Chemical needs to urgently answer\":                                                                                                      
-  Is Dow's conduct since the UCC acquisition \"consistent with the Olympics' sustainability aims?\"                                                                                                                           
-  Did LOCOG seek input from other groups than Dow on the Bhopal issue?                                                                                                                                                      
-  \"...even if Dow win their legal battles against Bhopal survivors and the Indian Government, is there a reputational risk to London 2012 in their sponsorship of the Olympic Stadium wrap?\"\"                               
http://www.labour.org.uk/dow-chemical-needs-to-answer-questions-regarding-bhopal,2011-11-15                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
UK communist media Morning Star posted a brief report on LOCOG's commitment to Dow's sponsorship, the \"Indian athletes and rights organizations\" letters to LOCOG, and Dow's position on the Bhopal issue.                   
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/111989                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/16 The Guardian published a report on the activist coalition press statement, with a little more detail on the activist groups and the campaign itself. The groups described Coe as \"stonewalling\" questions about the    
sponsorship. Coe's responses to the questions on the selection process and Dow's compliance with LOCOG requirements are also included. This article does not appear to be currently available online; full text available on 
request.                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/16 Indian media reported on Tuesday's events in London events.                                                                                                                                                            
- IBNS posted a report calling Dow's sponsorship \"tainted\" and said \"British MPs are up in arms\" over the issue, despite Coe's commitment to the stadium wrap deal. The wire story covered the activist coalition press      
statement and quoted from UK media on Coe describing Dow's selection. Dow's position statement is given at the end, and is unique in including the sentence regarding the MP state's control of the site and responsibility  
for remediation.                                                                                                                                                                                                             
http://www.indiablooms.com/SportsDetailsPage/2011/sportsDetails161111c.php                                                                                                                                                   
- ANI issued a short wire report on Coe's statements to the committee.                                                                                                                                                       
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/lord-coe-defends-blood-bhopal-dows-sponsorship-london-064028359.html                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/17 The Hindu summarized this week's media on the Dow Olympic sponsorship, drawing mainly from the activist coalition statements. Dow's position on Bhopal and Lord Coe's statements on the matter were included. The      
article appeared in the Delhi print edition.                                                                                                                                                                                 
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2633719.ece                                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/17 The Independent published a column by Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and Shadow Public Health Minister, who complained the Games have \"lost touch with reality,\" and that corporate            
sponsorships have not helped the matter. She called Dow's sponsorship \"distinctly unhealthy.\"                                                                                                                                
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/diane-abbott-the-games-that-lost-touch-with-reality-6263191.html                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/18 Around the Rings published a Sponsor Spotlight report with a brief report on Lord Coe's statements defending the Dow sponsorship.                                                                                      
http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=38533                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/15-18 Local media: MDN, MLive, WNEM; UK local letters and columns                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/15 Local MIchigan media picked up the AP report on events in London regarding Dow's Olympic sponsorship, including MLive.com (Saginaw News), WNEM TV-5 websites, and the print edition of the Midland Daily News - p2     
across the fold on the left side.                                                                                                                                                                                            
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/london-olympic-organizers-wont-scrap-dow-deal/e9f9eec28189496ba544ed04469c081f                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/17-18 Local UK media columns and letters addressed the Dow sponsorship and the Olympics in general.                                                                                                                       
 - Wharf.uk reported on the activist coalition press event. http://www.wharf.co.uk/2011/11/mps-urge-locog-to-ditch-deal-w.html                                                                                               
 - Scottish Daily Record columnist Joan Burnie used the Dow sponsorship controversy to complain about the Games overall as \"becoming more farcical, as well as expensive, by the day.\"                                       
http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/joanburnie/2011/11/watching-our-money-go-up-in-olympic-flam.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDailyRecord%2FJoanBurnie+%28The+Daily+Record+-+Joan+Burnie%29  
-  East End Advertiser published a letter by Agent Orange activist Len Aldis criticizing Dow's sponsorship and invoking the AO and napalm issues. Bhopal was not mentioned. Full text available on request.                  
 - East End Advertiser also published a comment that Bethnal Green and Bow MP Rushanara Ali \"has called upon\" LOCOG to \"rethink their use of the Dow Chemical Company as a stadium sponsor.\" Full text available on request. 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/14 Saginaw News: Reporter questions whether Bhopal \"shadow\" affects Dow                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Saginaw News posted an MLive.com article titled \"Is the Bhopal disaster still casting a shadow on Dow Chemical?\" by business and economic issues reporter Kathryn Lynch-Morin.                                               
The context of the article is Liveris' possibly being \"dropped from\" the Indo-US CEO Forum and the company's connection, or lack thereof, to the Bhopal gas tragedy.                                                         
Morin cited Dow statements regarding the CEO Forum, the Bhopal gas tragedy, and Responsible Care.                                                                                                                            
After mentioning the press statements in India regarding the ICJB's Olympic athlete petition, Lynch-Morin closed with:                                                                                                       
\"Is the Bhopal disaster still unfairly casting a shadow on Dow Chemical?\"                                                                                                                                                    
No comments were posted on this item.                                                                                                                                                                                        
http://www.mlive.com/business/mid-michigan/index.ssf/2011/11/is_the_bhopal_disaster_still_c.html                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/12 Hindustan Times: GoI cancelled registrations for four Dow Agrosciences products                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Hindustan Times reported the registrations for the four DAS India pesticides that have been at issue in the De-Nocil cases have been cancelled by the GoI.                                                                   
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Govt-bars-Dow-unit-from-selling-4-pesticides/Article1-768367.aspx                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/15 Ummid: Pervez Bari article on Olympics and standing activist allegations against Dow                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Ummid published a long article by Indian Muslim reporter Pervez Bari, who folded together several topics regarding Bhopal.                                                                                                   
He started with the information from the Bhopal and Chennai press conferences, listed the 21 former Olympians who signed the ICJB petition, and text from the ICJB press statement. He included expanded comments from       
Dhingra saying the UK MPs actions are based on \"initiative of the BGIA\" (Bhopal Group for Information and Action).                                                                                                           
Bari revisited the activist allegations regarding Dow, its relationship to and responsibilities for UCC, the polluter pays principle, UCC's lease obligation to return the factory site to the MP govt \"in its original      
condition,\" the GoI court petition for Dow to fund the site remediation, and the activist claim of double standards and racist policies regarding UCC business in the US and India.                                          
http://ummid.com/news/2011/November/15.11.2011/olymipans_against_dow_chemicals.htm                                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/18 IANS, Telegraph: Greenpeace, \"Bhopal survivors\" object to new nuclear civil liabilities rules                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
India's Telegraph and IANS reported Greenpeace and \"Bhopal survivors\" reacted angrily at the terms of the GoI's Rules of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act that were issued on Thursday. \"Campaigners...warned of  
'another Bhopal'\" in terms of compensation and environmental contamination, should a nuclear facility accident occur. Greenpeace member Karuna Raina alleged the GoI places \"foreign interest...above the wellbeing of its   
people.\"                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/8896591/India-angers-Bhopal-survivors-over-nuclear-decision.html                                                                                             
IANS: http://www.inewsone.com/2011/11/17/india-caved-in-to-foreign-pressure-on-nuclear-liability/90944                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/14 Asian Voice: Keith Vaz interview of Colin Toogood on Bhopal and BMA                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Asian Voice, a UK tabloid newspaper, published an interview with BMA's Toogood done by Keith Vaz. Toogood talked a little about his life before BMA, what he does for BMA, and long term goals. Dow is not                   
mentioned. Toogood focuses on providing services for the gas victims \"and hopefully the justice they deserve.\" He cited the \"ongoing environmental contamination\" and the \"second disaster\" of water contamination. He       
acknowledged BMA is a \"tiny charity,\" \"there is so little awareness\" of continuing issues in Bhopal, and people assume \"the Bhopal disaster was all resolved many years ago.\" Full text available on request.                
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/14-11/17 Independent, Socialist Party UK: BMHRC drug trials commentary                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
UK Independent posted two articles on the Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Center drug trials:                                                                                                                          
- The first focused on pharmaceutical companies using impoverished Indian people as \"guinea pigs,\" with one short paragraph on the drug trials. Full text available on request.                                              
- The second article was specific to the BMHRC. Writer Nina Lakhani said the information sources were \"secret reports\" showing \"drug trials funded by western pharmaceutical firms at the Indian hospital set up for         
survivors of the Bhopal disaster violated international ethical standards and could have put patients at risk.\"The reports cited are likely documents accessed by ICJB leader Rachna Dhingra via RTI requests that have been 
reported here previously. Dow is not mentioned, the article focuses on pharmaceutical companies including Theravance, Pfizer, GSK and Sanofi, and the drug trial practices at the hospital. Dhingra termed the conduct of    
the trials \"disgusting and appalling,\" and the Bhopal gas survivors who were subjected to the trials \"doubly victimized.\" A case study of Ramadhar Shrivastave is included; he is the same patient highlighted in recent     
media items about the drug trial controversy.                                                                                                                                                                                
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?rid=201028415&cat=hfu8sjsy4hjfjdha                                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
- Daily News & Analysis published a commentary on Monday's broader Independent report on drug trials in India. Full text available on request.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
- The Socialist Party UK media also included a brief report on the BMHRC drug trials controversy.                                                                                                                            
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/694/13161/16-11-2011/fast-news                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/17 Hard News: activist RTI requests GoI documents on Anderson extradition                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Indian media Hard News published a report on an activist's RTI requests to access GoI documents on the Warren Anderson extradition efforts. Afroz Alam Sahil was provided with CBI and Ministry of External Affairs          
documents from 1992-94, which he said indicated the agencies did not try to expedite the process.                                                                                                                            
The lengthy article mentioned the curative petition on Bhopal victims compensation was originally scheduled to begin hearings on Oct. 17, \"but it has been postponed.\"                                                       
http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2011/11/4214                                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
11/18 Derby Evening Telegraph: Animal's People review                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
The UK's Derby Evening Telegraph published a local book group review of Indra Sinha's novel Animal's People. Full text available on request.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Bhopali film: Screenings scheduled in Amsterdam, Toronto, London, NYC, Pittsburgh, Boston                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Upcoming screenings scheduled for the Bhopali documentary include:                                                                                                                                                           
-        11/18-11/23, International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) - four screenings: 11/18, 19, 20, 23. No indication whether either Carlson or Payalan will attend.                                            
-        11/25. Amnesty Int'l Film Festival - Toronto screening with Ellen Shifrin, ICJB North America advisory board member, also AI Toronto Business & Human Rights Team, and Aube Giroux, a Canadian activist filmmaker.  
-        11/30 Frontier Club, London. Writer and BMA co-founder Indra Sinha will attend (host/present?)                                                                                                                      
-        12/1 The Indie Screen in Brooklyn, NY                                                                                                                                                                               
-        12/1 Pittsburgh University, presented by AID Pittsburgh                                                                                                                                                             
-        12/2 Amnesty International Film Festival, Bloor Street United Church of Canada in Toronto                                                                                                                           
-        12/3 MIT campus at 6:30 p.m. \"followed by a Q&A with members of ICJB.                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
ICJB website: new front page layout; Rail Roko information/justification                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
The front page of the ICJB website, Bhopal.net, front page has undergone a partial transition, with a new image of a Bhopal torch light rally and a reorganization of the information on the page. The site's interior pages 
do not appear to have changed.                                                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
The site was also updated with five pages of information regarding the Rail Roko protest that is planned for Bhopal on Dec. 3.                                                                                               
The posts include:                                                                                                                                                                                                           
- An appeal for readers to \"change your reservations now\" to avoid traveling by train on 12/3. The text includes an apology for the inconvenience, \"but stopping the trains is the only effective way we can think of to get 
our urgent and important message through to the prime minister & government.\"                                                                                                                                                
- The posts are all about compensation for the gas victims - the UCC settlement amount, how it was calculated, the GoI's \"promise to make amends for its betrayal in 1989\" with the curative petition on compensation, and   
the claimed inaccuracy of data submitted with the curative petition, as compared to ICMR data. Comparisons using charts and tables are made between settlements for the U.S. Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, the \"Mangalore rail     
crash,\" and \"Uphaar cinema fire.\"                                                                                                                                                                                            
- A page on \"the first betrayal\" claims Warren Anderson met with the Indian ambassador in Washington early in 1985 and was told the GoI \"had an open mind\" but wanted UCC \"to take the first step\" in proposing a            
settlement. A proposal was reportedly delivered at a subsequent \"top secret meeting\" between UCC, UCIL and GoI officials, followed by the formal proposal on March 4, 1985.                                                  
Full text attached.                                                                                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
BMA website: media items on Dow's Olympic sponsorship; play day for Chingari Trust children                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
BMA posted four new items on its website, including three of the recent media items on Dow's Olympic sponsorship:                                                                                                            
-        An excerpt from the Independent's initial article on Tuesday, 11/15, with the title \"Coe shrugs off Bhopal protest.\"                                                                                                
-        The Guardian's poll on whether LOCOG should drop Dow's sponsorship.                                                                                                                                                 
-        The Channel 4 article on the sponsorship issue.                                                                                                                                                                     
-        Photos and description of a picnic and play day for Chingari Trust children at a park in Bhopal.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Amnesty: Bhopal presentation slides for Group 133; Annual Write-A-Thon on Dec. 11                                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
The Amnesty Group 133 (Somerville, MA) message board posted the slides from Leonid Chindelevitch's ICJB presentation Nov. 8. The 28 slides do not contain much new information. The Olympics campaign plan is the same that  
was posted on the AID Boston chapter minutes from 10/23. The new items are:                                                                                                                                                  
  * Dates for local events - 12/3  Bhopali documentary screening at MIT; a workshop on 11/13 \"on activism-life balance\" - by Hillary Rettig.                                                                                 
  * The 'Plan of Action\" reiterated:                                                                                                                                                                                         
       * \"reach out - US Olympians, Dow victims from all 5 continents, Allies (Amnesty International, AID, Agent Orange, Greenpeace, BMA, etc)                                                                               
       * \"Mobilize awareness on Dec 3rd and 10th                                                                                                                                                                             
       * \"Hold parallel Olympics for Dow victims                                                                                                                                                                             
       * \"Strategy via the Olympic organizing committee\" (no further explanation of this)                                                                                                                                    
  * A victory over \"Dow's hypocrisy\" was claimed because 6 ICJB members \"disrupted\" the Live Earth Run in 2010 and \"It was not held again in 2011!\"                                                                          
  * Past events mentioned included the walks from Bhopal to Delhi and the \"B'eau Pal Water\" Yes Men/BMA prank                                                                                                                
Due to the file size, the slides are available on request.                                                                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Amnesty Group 133 plans to hold its Annual Global Write-A-Thon on Sunday, Dec. 11 in the Center Court of Boston's Prudential Building. The ICJB Boston action plan regarding Dow's Olympics sponsorship includes Dec. 10,    
World Human Rights Day, as an action date this year. Given Chindelevitch's recent presentation, the public event is a candidate for some type of ICJB activity.                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Change.org petition now over 1,000 signatures                                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
As of Nov. 18, the Change.org petition addressed to Lord Coe currently has about 1,030 signatures.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Activist email: Dhingra, Edwards send media items to Remember-Bhopal list                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Rachna Dhingra emailed to the Remember-Bhopal distribution list the full text of Tuesday's Independent article claiming \"secret reports\" as the source material for reporting on the BMHRC drug trials.                      
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Dhingra and Tim Edwards each emailed Wednesday's poll URL to the \"Remember-Bhopal\" distribution list and encouraged recipients to vote \"Yes.\"                                                                                
Edwards also emailed 8 URLs for a \"selection of UK coverage\" on Tuesday.                                                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
AID: new chapter at George Washington Univ.                                                                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
There is a new AID chapter at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. No details have been released about the group, other than it was founded \"with the help of a few AID JHU (Johns Hopkins Univ) students.\"      
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Message boards: Games Monitor; Chennai and Delhi enviro groups                                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
The Games Monitor watchdog blog and message board posted Tuesday's BMA press announcement and Times of India's report on Coe's hearing testimony on the Dow sponsorship.                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
ICJB activist Shweta Nayaran shared the Guardian poll link on the message boards for the Chennai-based environmental group Lets Save Our Oceans and Reclaim Our Beaches, and the IITD4Bhopal IIT Delhi group.                
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Blogs: BMA volunteer Ian Jarvis updates on life at clinic                                                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Sambhavna Clinic volunteer therapist Ian Jarvis posted a Week 11 diary update about life at the clinic. His main topics are the Muslim Eid festival, and challenges of electrical power access at the clinic.                
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Social media: BMA Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube; anti-Dow Olympics Facebook                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
BMA's Facebook page was updated with the same three posts as the website:                                                                                                                                                    
-       An excerpt from the Independent's initial article on Tuesday, 11/15, with the title \"Coe shrugs off Bhopal protest.                                                                                                  
-       The Guardian's poll on whether LOCOG should drop Dow's sponsorship.                                                                                                                                                  
-       The Channel 4 article on the sponsorship issue.                                                                                                                                                                      
The page also included a link to the Hindustan Times article from 11/12 about GoI cancelling registrations for the four DAS India products. Photojournalist Jack Laurenson posted several comments criticizing Dow's Olympic 
sponsorship and remarks made by Lord Coe regarding the issue.                                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
BMA's Twitter account tweeted the link to the Guardian's poll, announcing that 91.6% thought Dow should be removed as a sponsor. The account also posted several links to recent media, and a link to the Bhopali Facebook   
announcement of the film screening at MIT on Dec. 1.                                                                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Al Jazeera's video report on the anti-Dow UK activists was \"liked\" by BMA on YouTube.                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
The anti-Dow Olympic sponsorship Facebook page has many of the same posts as the BMA page, and a few others.                                                                                                                 
-        Rosalind Hardie posted a link to the KIM Foundation, with the comment \"Dow were also manufacturers of Agent Orange and Napalm used against civilians in the Vietnam War.\"                                           
-        Lorraine Close posted the Ecologist article on the PAN people's tribunal session about the agrichemical companies                                                                                                   
-        Close also remarked her Change.org petition exceeded 1,000 signatures, and asked for continued sharing of the link to it.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Yes Men: Yes Lab actions at APEC in Hawai'i; Bonanno to conduct Yes Lab in Sweden 12/14-16; Mark Rudd at Yes Lab 11/17                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
The Yes Men reported a Yes Lab action took place at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference in Honolulu, Hawai'i on 11/12, where Occupy Hawai'i activist and \"renowned guitarist Makana\" was to perform      
instrumental music, but instead sang a protest song he called \"We Are the Many\" and displayed a shirt reading \"Occupy With Aloha.\" The audience included heads of states from the U.S., China, Canada, Indonesia and         
elsewhere.                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
The prank received local media coverage in the Honolulu Star Advertiser, as well as blog posts by the Yes Men.                                                                                                               
http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?action=login&f=y  (requires subscription or available on request)                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Univ. of Hawai'i  Manoa media Ka Leo had reported successively on Yes Man Mike Bonanno's appearances in the state at the \"alterna* APEC's Forum(to)Festival\" event Nov. 9-13. Bonanno encouraged forum participants to       
respond creatively to \"give APEC the attention it deserves.\" There was no mention of Makana as a forum participant.                                                                                                          
http://www.kaleo.org/news/forum-encourages-creative-response-to-apec-1.2667628                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Bonanno is scheduled to appear on Dec. 14 at Stockholm arts blog Sugarcube Gallery to lecture and \"conduct a yeslab [sic] in various sites, including KKH, Sugarcube and Stockholm at large.\" Bonanno's visit is to be Dec.  
14-16. The event is \"part of the Budget Recalcitrance Program conceived by Amanda Newall at the Royal Institute of Art.\"                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
The Nov. 17 Occupy Wall Street day of action was promoted by the Yes Lab blog, which concurrently announced the week's \"Revolutionaries Live!\" speaker was Mark Rudd, who was a \"national symbol of student revolt\" as part  
of the SDS faction the Weathermen in the 1960s..                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                           Table of Contents 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
                                                                                            Allis Information Management, Inc..                                                                                              

   Please remove me from this mailing list.

    
","2011-11-19 00:39:50",1,"2012-02-27 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/407784_dow-confidential-bhopal-monitoring-report-friday-november-18.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","mongoven@stratfor.com","attach/35/35124_Activist email 11-14-11 ICJB press release.pdf
attach/35/35125_Activist info 11-14-11 ICJB Olympian Endorsements.pdf
attach/35/35128_Activist info 11-14-11 ICJB athlete petition.pdf
attach/35/35551_Activist info 11-17-11 ICJB - Rail Roko.pdf
attach/37/37070_PAN_-_PPT_press_release_11-14-11.pdf
attach/37/37073_Activist_info_11-12-11_BMA_press_statement.pdf
attach/37/37074_PPT_AgChem_case_summary_11-16-11.pdf"
408316,"Bhopal update - 11-30-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   UK media continued reporting on the IOA not voting on an Olympic boycott,
   with the latest items including a comment from Lord Coe: \"I have very,
   very close links with the Indian national Olympic committee and I have
   never had any sense at all, privately or publicly, that there was any
   appetite for a boycott.\"

   Articles have been seen the Guardian, the Mirror, some local/regional
   outlets and a few international outlets. The texts are all very similar.

   Guardian: 
   http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/nov/29/lord-coe-india-boycott-london-2012?newsfeed=true

   Midland Daily News today has the AP article from Monday, located on page
   A3 at the top.

   Indian sports media SportzPower published an article reporting the IOA
   meeting on 12/5 \"is not going to happen,\" partly because IOA secretary
   general Raja Randhir Singh will be traveling to Lausanne, Switzerland that
   day. Unidentified \"top sources\" also indicated none of the former
   Olympians who signed are IOA members, and that none of the active athletes
   \"have written anything\" about the Dow sponsorship.

   This article reported the IOC \"has been circulating\" a document with
   background on the Bhopal gas accident and subsequent activities of the
   Indian governments and UCC \"to place on the table the facts of the case
   against the detractors, who are linking Dow Chemical Company with Union
   Carbide Company.\"

   http://www.sportzpower.com/?q=content/dow-chemicals-issue-no-concern-ioa-has-no-issue-london-2012-0

   Marketing Week published a commentary about Olympic sponsorships in
   general, that sponsoring companies comprise \"a veritable rogues gallery of
   the corporate reputation that hardly adheres to the Olympic motto of
   `faster, higher, stronger.\" BP, Lloyds TSB and Thomas Cook are named in
   this regard. Further comment includes: \"Today, most of the companies big
   enough to afford an Olympic sponsorship and desperate enough to seek out
   global recognition are often those most in need of reputational rescue.\"

   -       Tim Edwards emailed a link to the article to the Remember-Bhopal
   distribution list and included the last item quoted.

   http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/opinion/the-olympic-rings-hide-a-multitude-of-sins/3032347.article

   IBNS published the ICJB press statement about Sambhavna staff
   participation in the Bhopal anniversary events. DNA published a brief item
   from that.

   PTI reported Abdul Jabbar \"threatened of holding a dharna\" on 12/2-3 at CM
   Chouhan's residence as an anniversary observance. Jabbar addressed the
   media, complaining the \"district court\" has \"a total lack of seriousness\"
   in hearing the case on enhancing the sentences in the Bhopal criminal
   case. He also said the GoI and MP state have not implemented the several
   projects or programs for the gas victims that have been announced \"in the
   last 18 months.\"

   http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_bhopal-gas-tragedy-organisation-accuses-centre-state-of-inaction_1619422

   In Nagpur, the Hitavada reported DRDO joint director, Dr. G P Meshram,
   presented at an Indo Finland workshop at NEERI on \"The Genomic Tools in
   Bio-remediation.\" The Hitavada asked Meshram about possible applications
   of bio-remediation for the Bhopal factory waste, to which he apparently
   responded positively. (The writing and grammar are not entirely clear.)
   Full text available on request.

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-11-30 18:51:55",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/408316_bhopal-update-11-30-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
408906,"Bhopal update - 07-26-11
","   Scot, Tomm,

   The Bhopal gas NGOs held a \"huge rally\" (photo in DNA paper looks like
   300-400 people), marched from the Bhopal Talkies theatre and presented to
   the Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister and Governor a memo for Prime Minister
   Singh calling for the curative petition on compensation and the UCC
   settlement to be revised with \"facts and figures consistent with the
   actual damage caused by the disaster.\" Rachna Dhingra was quoted on behalf
   of the Bhopal Group for Information and Action, offering to \"point out
   lacunae [gaps/holes] in the curative petition.\"

   She said the current form of the curative petition \"would only serve to
   misinform the Supreme Court regarding the extent of damage caused by the
   corporation and it would thus be an obstruction to the delivery of justice
   to the Bhopal victims.\"

   The DNA article was not found online, but the Daily Pioneer also reported
   on the protest. DNA's coverage was on p5 of the Indore edition at the top
   of the page with one short column of text and a 3-column wide photo.

   http://www.dailypioneer.com/355968/Gas-tragedy-survivors-submit-memorandum-to-Guv-seek-PMs-intervention.html

   Mail Today published an editorial comment on the curative petition and
   called for it to be \"withdrawn from the Supreme Court, amended suitably
   and filed again.\"

   The article was not found online.

   Al Jazeera published a lengthy article by high-profile activist Vandana
   Shiva in which she cited the Bhopal gas disaster as an example of
   corporations as sources of \"toxic pollution.\" The article was a general
   condemnation of capitalism and the current Indian administration.

   http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/07/2011722134648714404.html

   CSR Wire published a review by Elaine Cohen of a book titled \"Corporate
   Social Responsibility: An Ethical Approach,\" by Mark Schwarz. Cohen wrote:
   \"The heart of the book, however, is a grand debate between Milton Friedman
   and The Body Shop positions on a range of CSR-related case studies\" and
   the Bhopal gas tragedy is grouped with the Johnson & Johnson Tylenol
   contamination incident and \"the river blindness story and Merck, the
   pharmaceutical company.\"

   http://www.csrwire.com/blog/posts/65-a-review-of-corporate-social-responsibility-an-ethical-approach

   Express News Service reported a film festival at Thiruvananthapuram will
   include \"After the Genocide,\" based on the Bhopal tragedy. (This film is
   not familiar to me) 
   http://expressbuzz.com/cities/thiruvananthapuram/old-partner-to-be-opening-film/297801.html

   The BMA website posted the India Today article on the NGOs' press
   statement about the compensation and mortality/morbidity figures, and
   posted Twitter and Facebook links to the post.

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-07-26 17:11:41",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/408906_bhopal-update-07-26-11-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
408954,"Re: Ambassador Djalal
","   You guys need a life. Or dinner on my deck when temp goes down 10 or 20
   degrees. And you both hang out with women who are way beyond your low
   stations in life. As do I. K
    
   From: Karl Rove [mailto:kr@rove.com]
   Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2011 07:43 PM
   To: George Friedman <gfriedman@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Kerry Cammack
   Subject: Re: Ambassador Djalal
    
   I've been doing it for years and little has helped
   On Sep 4, 2011, at 7:38 PM, George Friedman wrote:

     Thanks. I'm already doing damage control on teh Cammack matter.

     On 09/04/11 19:30 , Karl Rove wrote:

       will do -- he has a call into me as well
       I will tell him you inquired and then make it happen
       both of us need to worry about what the public knowledge that we know
       Cammack could do to our respective reputations
       On Sep 4, 2011, at 6:45 PM, George Friedman wrote:

         Karl:

         Dino Djalal is the Indonesian Ambassador to the United States and
         someone I have known for a bit.  On a trip to Jakarta where I met
         with the President, he approached me asking whether I could help in
         arranging a visit for him with President Bush in order to offer his
         formal gratitude for improving relations with Indonesia during his
         administration. I gathered that this visit was of importance to his
         President who is deeply grateful to President Bush and wants it
         formally transmitted.

         I said that I would do what I could, which in m case consists of
         bringing the matter to Kerry's attention.  I certainly am not aware
         of all of the dynamics here, but I do know that President Bush was
         regarded very fondly in Indonesia during my visit. I do not think
         there is any hidden agenda in this.  Should such a visit be
         possible, it would certainly please the Ambassador and President of
         Indonesia.

         If there is any way I can help facilitate this, please let me know. 
         Thank you for your help in advance.

         Best,

         George Friedman
         On 09/04/11 13:01 , Kerry Cammack wrote:

           George, please contact Karl to coordinate the request you are
           honoring from the Indonesian ambassador to the US for a courtesy
           call and visit with President Bush.  Karl believes the President
           would favorably respond to the request but of course that is
           contingent on timing and other scheduling commitments.  Karl, the
           ambassador is a friend of Georgei? 1/2s who has reached out to 
           him for assistance in arranging this meeting.  Thanks for helping
           my friend George respond to this request.   Best,  Kerry

            

           Kerry N. Cammack

           Cammack & Strong, P.C.

           919 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400

           Austin, TX 78701

           Tele:(512) 472-9919

           Fax:(512) 476-6441

            

           THIS E-MAIL AND ITS ATTACHMENTS ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF
           THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY WHO IS THE INTENDED RECIPIENT AND MAY
           CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT
           FROM DISCLOSURE OR ANY TYPE OF USE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE
           READER OF THIS E-MAIL IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE
           EMPLOYEE, AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE
           E-MAIL TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY
           DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, COPYING, OR OTHER USE OF THIS E-MAIL
           IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR,
           PLEASE REPLY IMMEDIATELY TO THE SENDER.

            

         --

         George Friedman

         Founder and CEO

         STRATFOR

         221 West 6th Street

         Suite 400

         Austin, Texas 78701

          

         Phone: 512-744-4319

         Fax: 512-744-4334

          

     --

     George Friedman

     Founder and CEO

     STRATFOR

     221 West 6th Street

     Suite 400

     Austin, Texas 78701

      

     Phone: 512-744-4319

     Fax: 512-744-4334

      
","2011-09-05 04:16:21",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/408954_re-ambassador-djalal-.html","kncammack@cammacklaw.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com,kr@rove.com",""
409205,"Bhopal update - 08-08-11 media
","   Scot, Tomm,

   Coverage of the activist displeasure over the Olympic stadium wrap is
   mainly in India at this point in time.

   Chemical Week, however, published an article by Alex Scott that is more
   critical of the wrap's sustainability than the Bhopal issue. Scott
   referred to the Express Sunday article \"Olympic Stadium `is Stained by the
   Blood of Bhopal\" and wrote, \"Dow purchased Union Carbide several years ago
   and with it the burden of any outstanding  blame for the accident.\" He
   also said, \"Some environmental experts I have talked to are not
   particularly impressed by the Wrap material, however\"; but he did not cite
   anyone in particular. Scott is CW's Executive Editor, Web and Environment.

   http://www.chemweek.com/chem_ideas/Alex-Scott/Dow-Olympic-Wrap-Shrouded-in-Criticism-too-Much-Looking-Back-or-Not-Enough-Looking-Forward_36770.html

   PTI reported they received a statement from the London Olympic Committee
   defending the Dow sponsorship, saying \"\"It is a matter of record that the
   plant at the time of this human tragedy was not owned by Dow Chemical. Dow
   was appointed as the supplier of the wrap following a rigorous procurement
   process.  All of our suppliers must work within our own sustainable
   sourcing code and reflect our values and sustainability requirements.\"

   The report combined the LOC statement; Dow's press information on the
   wrap; Rachna Dhingra's comment on the \"message to Seb Coe\" and Dow's \"PR
   machine working for them day and night; Greenpeace's characterization of
   the sponsorship as \"offensive\"; and BMA activist Lorrain Close's comment
   regarding \"abuse and neglect\" of \"some of the poorest people, while being
   positively reinforced by Olympic organizers and the UK government.\"
   Multiple pickups by online media.

   http://www.asianage.com/india/dow-chemicals-icing-cake-london-olympics-activists-furious-392

   Print edition coverage

   -       Hindustan Times' front pages of all four English language editions
   today had the in-house report by Depankar De Sarkar. The Kolkata edition
   had the article at as the lead story with the child's funeral image, while
   New Delhi, Mumbai and Chandigarh editions placed the piece at the bottom
   of the page with a photo of the Olympic stadium.

   -       HT's sports also had the hockey players' reactions condemning the
   Olympics deal.  New Delhi - p18 top, Kolkata - p16 top, Chandigarh - p13
   bottom, Mumbai - p18 middle below the fold

   -       Times of India's Mumbai edition had an introduction to the
   Olympics story on the bottom of the front page, the story on p22

   -       Economic Times had the ANI report on p4 in a \"pitch report\" column
   and a \"thumbs down\" rating.

   NewsXLive posted a 49-second video report on YouTube: a London anchor read
   bullet points from activist statement over images from the 1984 gas leak:

   \"campaigners outraged\"; \"Children in the city [Bhopal] are still being
   born maimed\" and activists called for \"widespread protest\" and \"Bhopal
   Olympics.\" Only Greenpeace was specifically cited, with text shown from GP
   spokesperson Arundhati Muthu. Fewer than a dozen views at 8 a.m.

   IBNS reported the ICJB will be joining anti-corruption activist Anna
   Hazare in agitations over the GoI's anti-corruption bill that they
   \"condemn.\" Protests over this are planned in Bhopal on Tuesday \"at the
   Union Carbide factory,\" and unspecified \"solidarity action in Bhopal from
   August 16.\" The ICJB is again raising the issue of \"irregularities in the
   purchase of medicine for gas victims.\" They had held a 19-day fast in
   March 2007 over this, which resulted in several being charged with
   attempted suicide, which have not been resolved. The survivors groups
   claim the Ministry of Bhopal Gas Tragedy has \"sabotaged\" the Supreme
   Court's Monitoring Committee that was supposed to have oversight.

   http://www.indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsPage/newsDetails080811k.php

   AlterNet picked up the Al Jazeera report on pharmaceutical testing on poor
   populations in India, including at the Bhopal Memorial Hospital and
   Research Center.

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-08-08 17:53:50",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/409205_bhopal-update-08-08-11-media-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
410181,"FW: Manning & Wiki Founder Arrest/Prosecution?
","   Holy crap, we're passing Fred's rantings to confederation partners?

    

    

    

   From: Emre Dogru [mailto:emre.dogru@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 3:37 AM
   To: burton
   Cc: Confederation
   Subject: Fwd: Manning & Wiki Founder Arrest/Prosecution?

    

   Hey Fred, one of our confed partners (Sabah daily) would like to use this
   information without any attribution. But he just wonders if your source
   used \"fry\" in the sense that Manning should be executed by electrocution,
   or does it mean something else in intel business lingo?

    

   Thanks

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>, \"TACTICAL\"
   <tactical@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:16:14 PM
   Subject: Manning & Wiki Founder Arrest/Prosecution?

   >From a very senior man @ the FBI -- (not for attribution to the FBI pls)

   ------------------------------------------------------------------

   There is no way the administration wants to put him on trial.  That
   would be a huge circus.  Manning should fry and hopefully will

   --
   --
   Emre Dogru
   STRATFOR  
   Cell: +90.532.465.7514
   Fixed: +1.512.279.9468  
   emre.dogru@stratfor.com  
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-03 11:54:04",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/410181_fw-manning-and-wiki-founder-arrest-prosecution-.html","scott.stewart@stratfor.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com",""
410270,"Wikileaks Weekly Comments Compiled
"," --
 Matthew Powers
 STRATFOR Researcher
 Matthew.Powers@stratfor.com
","2010-12-13 17:56:59",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/410270_wikileaks-weekly-comments-compiled-.html","matthew.powers@stratfor.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com,analysts@stratfor.com","attach/37/37263_Wikileaks Weekl - Comments Compiled.doc"
410485,"Article on Wikileaks
","","2011-01-11 08:09:05",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/410485_article-on-wikileaks-.html","generalhamidgul@gmail.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com","attach/37/37276_Aljazeera Wikileaks.pdf"
412101,"Fwd: INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Update on Chavez's health, power
 struggle, etc. - VZ302
","     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>
   To: watchofficer@statfor.com
   Sent: Monday, December 5, 2011 9:13:24 PM
   Subject: INSIGHT - VENEZUELA - Update on Chavez's health, power struggle,
   etc. - VZ302

   SOURCE: VZ302
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: well-connected VZ source working with Israel
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B - source is anti-Chavez, but I've gotten better at
   reading him over the years to tell when he's feeding me shit and when he's
   giving useful info - his info on the VZ regime has checked out, but i tend
   to be more skeptical on iran-related info
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   SPECIAL HANDLING: Alpha, scrub source info and also make sure rest of
   latam team sees this
   SOURCE HANDLER: Reva

   Chavez's health - the tumor started as a growth close to the prostate, it
   spread to the colon, which is what led to a lot of confusion in the OS
   about the treatment of prostate v. colon cancer  in hormonal v.
   chemotherapy. A reliable source on the medical has explained that the
   cancer has spread to the lymph nodes and into the bone marrow up to the
   spine, ie. very serious.

   Chavez temporarily stopped the chemo in order to make an appearance at the
   recent CELAC meeting.  The medical team is made up of both Russian and
   Cuban doctors. Both sides are clashing.  THe Russian team blamed the
   Cubans for an improper surgery the first time in trying to remove the
   tumor. The second surgery over the summer was basically the Russian team
   trying to clean up the Cuban team's mistakes. The Russians complain that
   the Cubans dont have the right imagery treatment to properly treat
   Chavez.  The Cuban medical diagnosis is 2 years. The Russian medical
   diagnosis, due to improper medical equipment, is less than one year. The
   source on the medical team complains that Chavez is a very 'bad patient.'
   He doesn't listen to his doctors, he ceases treatment when he has to make
   a public appearance. Now the Russian and the Chinese doctors are going at
   it because Chavez sought hte advice of a Chinese doctor that advocates
   more natural treatments and the Russians are saying this is horse shit
   treatment. only chavez can get the most politicized medical team in the
   world.
   (note - if you see medical reports on Chavez's health in WSJ or Brazil's
   Veja magazine, it's probably coming from this source.)

   Who replaces Chavez?
   I would keep my eye on FM Nicolas Maduro. Maduro is loyal as a dog to
   Chavez. (the source knows Maduro personally, from the days that Maduro was
   a driver of the metro bus.)  At the same time, maduro is seen as the most
   pragmatic in the regime.  If Chavez's health deteriorates significantly
   before the scheduled Oct 2012 elections, expect him to proclaim Maduro as
   his successor in one way or another. You can already see him propping up
   Maduro in a lot of ways. This is less risky than Chavez going through with
   elections, winning, suddenly dying and then a power struggle among the
   Chavistas breaking out. It will be much harder in this latter scenario for
   Maduro to assert himself against rival Chavistas like Diosdado Cabello,
   Rafiel Ramirez, etc.

   Remember that there are four key players propping up the regime - China,
   Cuba, Russia, Iran. All four are split on how to manage a post-Chavez
   regime. China and Russia are more insulated, as they've tried to get away
   from Chavez the personality, to preserving Chavismo, the regime. Russia
   has set up a specific task force (note the Patrushev visits) to help
   manage the post-chavez transition. Both China and Russia are backing
   Maduro as their preferred successor. Cuba, however, is in trouble.  They
   can't count on a Maduro to continue subsidizing them with thousands of
   barrels of oil every day. No one is really paying attention to Cuba - they
   can;t count on the Europeans for investment. Without VZ, they're screwed.
   The Cubans so far have been backing Adan Chavez (Chavez's brother) as the
   preferred candidate, but he doesnt have the same following. Cuba may shift
   to backing Maduro. (At this point in the convo, i brought up the
   possibility of Cuba, having the best intel on VZ, using that intel to
   leverage with the US and open up its options - he agreed that's what the
   Castros will do to survive but he hasnt seen serious signs of this.. yet.)

   Maduro is seen as more of a Lula candidate. He has a following, he has
   charisma, but he's also a balancer. He's the kind of guy that would open
   up to the US and keep tight with everyone else, but that still makes Iran
   nervous.  The source seems to think that Obama in his second term would
   open up to Maduro (and this is something that he is actively working on.)

   The opposition -
   Venezuela is divided into 5 different strata - A, B, C, D, E - A ++ is the
   elite of the elite, the boli-bourgeoisie that that Chavez has very
   successfully vilified. Chavez doesn't give a shit about these guys. His
   base is the D and E.
   Capriles Radonski, Leopoldo Lopez, Maria Corina Machado are all the A++ -
   way too elitist. They can't win over the chavista vote.
   The only one that has a real chance is Pablo Perez - Zulia governor - he's
   actually seen as one of the people.  The conversation between him adn the
   Castros is jsut starting up. (i asked if Perez is talking to Maduro yet -
   he says not yet.)

   guess who has been most cooperative with us lately?   The military elite. 
   These guys have been living the good life. They love women... lots of
   women. THey love booze. They love bora bora. They are easy to bribe. They
   dont care about chavez. they care about maintaining their current
   lifestyles. We've seen a lot of these military elite reach out to us
   lately, trying to insulate themselves in a post-Chavez scenario.

   This is why you'll see Chavez investing a lot of time and money in
   developing the militia. They're his best insurance policy. The more of a
   problem the militia can create on the streets, the more the military elite
   will hestiate before acting against him or his potential successor.

   The intent of the ley de precios is very simple. The money laundering
   schemes in food, pharmaceuticals, energy parts, etc. etc. have gotten
   worse./ Completely unchecked.  This price controls law is the government's
   way of controlling opposition campaign spending. Very straightforward -
   they have the legal justification to intimidate corporations into cutting
   back their support for the opposition, or else, their company is taken
   over. This will allow the state more control of the private sector.

   (side note) - we were talking a bit about a recent PdVSA-Iran joint
   venture. They shifted their main base of operations from Caracas to
   Ankara, though. This has become a trend lately, where a lot of Iran's
   sanctions circumventing oeprations in VZ are quietly being relocated to
   Turkey. Part of Turkey's balancing act with Iran.

   these were the main points. will update with more..little fuzzy from wine
   right now.
","2011-12-06 03:14:51",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/412101_fwd-insight-venezuela-update-on-chavez-s-health-power.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com",""
412522,"Bhopal update 12-02-11 Media 2
","   Scot, Tomm,

   The Hindu reported on the letter to LOCOG signed by MPs, \"celebrities\" and
   others. Prof. Noam Chomsky is quoted in this item, describing the Bhopal
   gas victims as having \"every right to expect us to join them in their
   courageous efforts\" at enforcing accountability for \"one of the worst
   corporate crimes in history, and to gain some compensation for their
   suffering.\" Gardiner and Livingstone are also quoted on the rationale for
   asking LOCOG to reconsider Dow's sponsorship.

   http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2681773.ece

   The Hindu's Business Line expanded on the reporting on the above-mentioned
   letter, quoting Ken Livingstone, apparently from today's press conference
   in London:

   \"We will certainly be looking at the possibility of a legal challenge. If
   we can't afford a wrap for the stadium I'd rather not have one than have
   one contaminated by the death of 25,000 people.\"

   Coe's statement of confidence in Dow not having liabilities for the Bhopal
   gas leak, and a brief rendition of the history of the stadium wrap
   conclude the article.

   http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/article2681580.ece?ref=wl_agri-biz

   Daily Mail posted a series of photos from the day's protests in Bhopal,
   showing the Coe, Malhotra and stadium effigies prior to and while being
   burned; an official photo of Coe; and images of the protesters.

   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2069167/Sebastian-Coe-effigy-burned-Bhopal-protesters-furious-chemical-firms-links-2012-London-Olympics.html

   Indian media have reported further on the rail roko event planned for
   Saturday.

   -       The Hindu reported Rachna Dhingra said the NGOs have been talking
   with the government for six months about changing the data used in the
   curative petition on compensation. The groups intend to keep the trains
   stopped until the GoI capitulates to their demand.

   http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2681980.ece

   -       Daily Pioneer reported details of locations where the blockades
   are likely to occur. Law enforcement is to be deployed. Activist
   Balkrishna Namdeo said the protests are to be non-violent, but they are
   willing to be arrested.

   http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/25028-voluntary-organisations-call-for-rail-roko-today.html

   Daily Pioneer reported BJP state president and MP Prabhat Jha claimed
   solidarity with the gas NGOs and said the government should do more for
   them.

   http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/24937-bjp-fight-for-gas-tragedy-victims-will-continue-jha.html

   Indian media also reported on other stories related to the anniversary
   protests: the ICJB press statements and the effigy burnings. Daily Pioneer
   reported Navin Shah said now he has begun a petition asking \"people from
   India and UK to create pressure on LOCOG to reconsider its position.\"

   http://www.dailypioneer.com/state-editions/bhopal/25022-protestors-burn-olympic-games-partners-effigies.html

   The UK's Guardian environment blog reported on the PAN People's Tribunal
   \"trial of pesticide companies\" that begins in Bangalore on Saturday. The
   blog post focuses on bee colony collapse syndrome that is blamed on
   neonicotiniod pesticides.

   http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/dec/02/pesticides-bees?newsfeed=true

   The Friday Indian print editions included two items on Daily News &
   Analysis' Bhopal page in the Indore edition. One reported on the Chingari
   Trust children's rally held on Dec. 1 to commemorate the Bhopal accident
   anniversary, the other reported the ICMR's call for research proposals to
   study the long term effects of MIC exposure in the gas tragedy victims has
   only received two responses, so the submission deadline has been extended
   to Dec. 31.

   -       Two Hindustan Times editions - New Delhi and Chandigarh - included
   the article \"British MPs want Dow ousted.\" Both were in the sports
   sections off to the right side of the page - one at the top and the other
   across the fold.

   Also, Sports Illustrated columnist Brian Cazeneuve updated and corrected
   Thursday's post about the London Olympics and Dow's sponsorship.

   http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/brian_cazeneuve/11/30/Olympic-Notebook/index.html?eref=si_more

   Ann Sigsby

   Senior Analyst

   Allis Information Management

   www.allisinfo.com

   989-835-5811

   The pages comprising this e-mail contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from
   Allis Information Management, Inc. This information is intended solely for
   use by the individual entity named as the recipient, be aware that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this e-mail
   is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
   forward back to the sender immediately.    
","2011-12-03 00:38:10",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/412522_bhopal-update-12-02-11-media-2-.html","asigsby@allisinfo.com","","sbwheeler@dow.com,tomm_sprick@yahoo.com,mediarelations@unioncarbide.com,CMKnochel@dow.com",""
558496,"email of Fred Burton
","Hi.

I am looking for the e-mail of Mr. Burton. Would be glad, if you can send it.

Thank you.



Sincerely,

Veni Markovski

Senior Advisor for International Projects
<http://www.daits.government.bg/>State Agency for IT and Communications
<http://www.government.bg/>Council of Ministers | REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA
----------------
email: <mailto:veni@veni.com>veni@veni.com | email2: 
<mailto:veni@daits.government.bg>veni@daits.government.bg
office: +1-646-873-7708 | office2: +359-2-401-8008 | fax: +1-212-319-5955
Bulgarian Consulate General, 121 E 62nd Str., New York, NY 10021, USA
","2008-08-10 23:45:37",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/558496_email-of-fred-burton-.html","veni@daits.government.bg","","service@stratfor.com",""
679231,"INDIA/PAKISTAN/CT- LeT planned to kill CM Modi using car: WikiLeaks
","[We knew it...Wikileak (though not original source of Info, but acted as ve=
ctor/parasite) confirmed it...]

LeT planned to kill CM Modi using car: WikiLeaks

Monday, December 6, 2010, 8:32 [IST]=20


New Delhi, Dec 6: The United States diplomatic cables released by whistle-b=
lowing website WikiLeaks revealed that the terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba =
(LeT) had planned an attack on Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

The LeT planed the plot to assassinate Narendra modi just seven months afte=
r 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack. The plan was to kill Modi was described as =
\"operations=E2=80=A6involving a car\" in the diplomatic cable sent from the =
office of the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

The cable described that the plot on Modi was planned by a Pakistan LeT mem=
ber Shafiq Khafa and scheduled to carry out by Indian LeT member Sameer Hus=
sein.

The cable sent on Jun 2009 said, \"LeT member Shafiq Khafa, possibly prepari=
ng for operation, and Hussein -- an India-based Lashkar-e-Taiba member -- c=
ontinued operational planning on three tasks in early June. The tasks were =
associated with a possible operation against Gujarat chief minister Narendr=
a Modi, the establishment of a training camp and unspecified work involving=
 a car. Hussein would coordinate his activities with an India-based colleag=
ue identified as Sameer.\" Read: =E0=A4=B9=E0=A4=BF=E0=A4=A8=E0=A5=8D=E0=A4=
=A6=E0=A5=80 =E0=A4=AE=E0=A5=87=E0=A4=82 The cable also exposed that LeT wa=
s searching for ideal sites in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala for differe=
nt operations.


--=20
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/679231_india-pakistan-ct-let-planned-to-kill-cm-modi-using-car.html","animesh.roul@stratfor.com","","os@stratfor.com",""
700446,"PAKISTAN/US- Plea to ban WikiLeaks dismissed
","
[This leaks biz is getting out of hand in India and Pak as well. In think tanks and media circle (esp in India) US is loosing its stature for double standard and people are praising wikileaks...Very hard to regain the lost ground for US...AR]


Plea to ban WikiLeaks dismissed
Updated at: 0918 PST, Friday, December 03, 2010
http://www.geo.tv/


 LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has dismissed a plea by a local lawyer Arif Gondal to ban the WikiLeaks in Pakistan, Geo News reported Friday.The petitioner was of the view that the leaks were defaming the leadership of the country and must be banned inside Pakistan.

-- 
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/700446_pakistan-us-plea-to-ban-wikileaks-dismissed-.html","animesh.roul@stratfor.com","","os@stratfor.com,mesa@stratfor.com",""
725029,"Punish Dow Chemicals: US legislators
","Punish Dow Chemicals: US legislators                                                                     
14 Jun 2008, 2225 hrs IST,IANS                                                                           
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Pollution/Punish_Dow_Chemicals_US_legislators/articleshow/3129704.cms 
                                                                                                         
                                                                                                         
                                                                                                         
NEW DELHI: Expressing solidarity with the Bhopal gas leak victims, 16 US House of Congress members led   
by Padma Bhushan Frank Pallone Jr have urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to bring Dow Chemicals to     
justice.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                         
Their letter dated June 5 is strong in its criticism of the US-based Dow Chemical, which took over Union 
Carbide, in whose plant the disaster took place on December 2-3, 1984.                                   
                                                                                                         
\"The conduct of American corporations outside the US is a long-standing concern of ours. In this case,   
US corporations have refused to submit to the jurisdiction of foreign (Indian) courts. It is outrageous  
that the executives of Union Carbide and its successor, Dow Chemical, have yet to be brought to          
justice,\" the letter reads.                                                                              
                                                                                                         
In the Bhopal gas leak holocaust, often called the world's worst industrial disaster, the Union Carbide  
pesticide plant leaked over 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas, which killed at least 3,800 people 
and affected many thousands.                                                                             
                                                                                                         
The US legislators' letter is the latest in a tide of support that has flowed in from overseas,          
including endorsements from British and Scottish MPs, Amnesty International, and more than 100 eminent   
writers and artists.                                                                                     
                                                                                                         
The letter, a copy of which was given to the media by a group of survivors holding protests and an       
indefinite hunger strike here, said: \"We are writing to express our support for the people of Bhopal,    
India, victims of the world's worst industrial disaster in 1984.                                         
                                                                                                         
\"The survivors marched 500 miles in February and March from Bhopal to New Delhi, where they have been    
for over 60 days. We urge you to personally meet the survivor groups and address their long-standing     
demands for justice and a life of dignity,\" said the letter addressed to the prime minister.             
                                                                                                         
Nearly 100 people including survivors, victims' family members and activists supporting the cause are    
protesting near Jantar Mantar in the heart of New Delhi. They say they won't stop the protest unless     
Manmohan Singh meets them and solves their problems.                                                     
Besides Pallone Jr, the Congress members who have signed the letter include Patrick Kennedy, Barbara Lee 
and Steve Rothman.                                                                                       
                                                                                                         
Nityanand Jayraman, an activist on protest, said that the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has received     
over 5,027 faxes urging him to meet the victims and listen to their demands.                             
                                                                                                         
While the PMO responded to their demands with a letter, organisations of gas leak survivors have found   
the response unsatisfactory.                                                                             
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/725029_punish-dow-chemicals-us-legislators-.html","animesh.roul@stratfor.com","","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com",""
745547,"Re: [CT] [TACTICAL]  Palantir (software)
","   Oh shit, I was way off.  I mixed these guys up with another company in my
   head.  Kerley is right about it's analytical functions.  The main public
   platform they are selling can crunch a lot of data and is used to identify
   and track fraudulent activity. These guys also came up for working with
   HBGary in trying to monitor wikileaks.

   I think Palantir is up to some shadier stuff to.  Including funding
   facebook........  (palantir's CEO is even depicted in the movie)

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   To: \"CT AOR\" <ct@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2011 3:30:52 PM
   Subject: Re: [CT] [TACTICAL]  Palantir (software)

   Yes, I think they do deep packet inspection stuff.  To oversimplify, this
   means the ability to look through internet traffic very carefully. 
   Similar to the stuff the Syrians were recently reported to be using. 

   Great for monitoring people who think they are anonymous, and, wait for
   it.......attribution!

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Rodger Baker\" <rbaker@stratfor.com>
   To: \"CT AOR\" <ct@stratfor.com>
   Cc: \"TACTICAL\" <tactical@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2011 3:27:23 PM
   Subject: Re: [TACTICAL] [CT] Palantir (software)

   I'm pretty sure I demoed one of their systems once.

   http://www.palantirtech.com/government

   On Nov 8, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Fred Burton wrote:

   > ** anybody heard of this software?
   >
   > --------------------------------------------------------------------
   >
   > a company called Palantir, and it was their software that DHS/ICE used
   > to help light up the Zeta network. You'll recall that the sweep of
   > arrests was massive. I think there was a report that said there was some
   > kind of law enforcement action in all 50 states, in addition to Mexico
   > and other countries.

   --
   Sean Noonan
   Tactical Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967
   www.STRATFOR.com

   --
   Sean Noonan
   Tactical Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967
   www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-08 23:07:18",1,"2012-02-27 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/745547_re-ct-tactical-palantir-software-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","mailto:ct@stratfor.com","ct@stratfor.com",""
746568,"Re: [CT] Anonymous and Occupy divergence...in the Iowa caucuses
","   occupying the caucasus themselves would be impossible -- as Sean noted its
   direct participatory democracy...each congressional district is split into
   not-so-small number of precincts, withe separate meeting places for
   democrats and republicans

   so my home town -- population 26k -- had 12 caucasus locations

   the greater des moines are (cue the laughter) would have something like 25
   times that

   and there is one other nice thing about Iowa -- the roads leading out are
   in immaculate condition

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   To: \"CT AOR\" <ct@stratfor.com>
   Cc: \"Peter Zeihan\" <peter.zeihan@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2011 9:30:51 PM
   Subject: Anonymous and Occupy divergence...in the Iowa caucuses

   Ironically after all my Anonymous bashing, i want to point out a very
   minor development. Mainly because it's funny to me. 

   I mentioned the Occupy Des Moines protest last week sometime.  It is very
   small, and a lot like Austin's.  They have been planning for a few weeks
   to Occupy the Iowa caucuses.  For those of you that don't know about the
   practice of the most important local democratic process in the world, the
   Iowa Caucuses are the first round of true competition between presidential
   candidates.  Unlike voting in a primary, it's more like a town hall
   meeting with much debate and discussion--a very open democratic form.  A
   candidate doesn't have to win Iowa necessarily to get the presidential
   nomination, but it serves to weed most of the bad ones early on in the
   race  (Iowans are fallible, they have made mistakes too). It's the one
   time that Iowa has an influence on politics, and I often say it is Iowa's
   one good thing.  I think it's January 3. 

   Back to the protestors.  Their plan has been developing to \"occupy\"
   candidate's offices.  That really means protest in front of the offices,
   which if you think of all the little shitty strip malls you see around,
   one small section would be a campaign office.  They have no security, and
   allow a lot of access to candidates if they choose to campaign in Iowa.
   The Occupy Des Moines group are not at all planning to disrupt the
   Caucuses functioning.  Though I wouldn't be surprised if they protested
   outside caucus meeting places, or more likely, brought their signs and
   slogans in with them.  These people are experienced organizers (as it
   comes to des moines), and know that if they have a political impact, one
   of the best places to aim it is the Caucuses. 

   Now here comes \"Anonymous.\"  Those of you that read the Wired background
   know that their real effect has been in popularizing \"memes.\"  One of
   these was actually Occupy Wall Street- 
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/occupy-wall-street-anonymous-connection_n_1021665.html 
   The mob of computer users and protest movement have been running on
   parallel tracks for awhile, and have served to mutually reinforce each
   other.

   Whoever from Anonymous made this new video about the Caucuses has made an
   ass out of themselves.  The video recommends actually shutting down the
   Caucuses.  That is both tactically dumb for the Occupy movement, but also
   totally antithetical to its general ideology.  For example, a Caucus
   functions very similarly to the Occupy General Assembly meetings--direct
   participatory democracy. 

   The Des Moines organizers have already spoken up- saying they have nothing
   to do with this \"Anonymous\" bullshit.  I'm happy to see I left them with
   some sense of realism.  This little event is not going to matter very
   much, but it shows how uncoordinated Anonymous is. 

   See the article below, the video is at the link. 

   Video calls for shutting down Iowa caucuses; the group Anonymous claims
   responsibility
   Jason Clayworth
   4:55 PM, Nov 6, 2011
   http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/06/video-calls-for-shutting-down-iowa-caucuses-the-group-anonymous-claims-responsibility/

   An anarchist-style movement that has caught the attention of the FBI and
   taken credit for hacking into military and corporate websites has now
   claimed responsibility for creating a video that urges its supporters to
   shut down the Iowa caucuses.

   Local authorities say they are aware of the video, are preparing for
   possible action by the group and are in contact with the presidential
   campaigns about the issue.

   A computer-generated voice in the online video, which had received more
   than 1,600 views by Sunday evening, says, a**Both parties are desecrating
   the American democracy and committing crimes against humanity on behalf of
   the American people.a**

   It continues: a**The primaries and caucuses put on by these parties are
   part of an elaborate scam that deceives the public into voting for
   candidates that serve the private interests of the mega corporations.
   These parties have deliberately driven tens of millions of people into
   poverty.a**

   It later says: a**We are calling upon you to occupy the campaign offices
   of presidential headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa, on Dec. 27, and
   peacefully shut down the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3.a**

   The group is believed to have no centralized operational leadership and
   appears to be piggybacking on the Occupy Des Moines movement.

   But Occupy Des Moines leaders say therea**s a difference: The Iowa
   groupa**s planned sit-ins at presidential campaign headquarters are not
   intended to shut down the Iowa caucuses, they say. Rather, they want to
   target presidential candidates and big-moneyed corporations that activists
   say are pulling the strings behind the scenes.

   While there are similarities between the groupsa** beliefs, they are
   separate, Occupy Des Moines participants emphasized Sunday.

   a**I dona**t like it one bit,a** former Rep. Ed Fallon, a Des Moines
   Democrat and participant in Occupy Des Moines, said of the video on
   Sunday. a**It doesna**t fit with my definition of Gandhi- and Martin
   Luther King Jr.-style nonviolence. The core of nonviolent action is truth.
   And if you are doing everything you can to be truthful, then you should be
   up front and transparent. No distorting of your voice or hiding.a**

   FBI sees Anonymous as security threat

   The Anonymous movement has become a potential national security threat,
   according to an article published in September by the Associated Press.

   The FBI has carried out more than 75 raids and arrested at least 16 people
   this year in connection with illegal Internet hacking jobs for which the
   group has claimed responsibility, according to the AP. One demonstration
   disrupted traffic in San Francisco as a protest after the Bay Area Rapid
   Transit system shut off cell service to deter a planned protest of a
   police shooting on a subway platform.

   The group also claimed responsibility for hacking the online payment
   processing center PayPal after it had suspended WikiLeaksa** account after
   WikiLeaks published sensitive U.S. government intelligence documents, the
   AP reported.

   Three of the Iowa campaign headquarters of presidential candidates are in
   Urbandale a** those of Michele Bachmann, a U.S. representative from
   Minnesota; former Godfathera**s Pizza CEO Herman Cain; and former
   Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

   Urbandale police are aware of the video, and while they arena**t releasing
   details of their security plans, authorities will be prepared should the
   demonstrations take an illegal turn, Urbandale officer Randy Peterson said
   Sunday.

   a**Wea**ll just try to address any issue as they arise,a** Peterson said.

   Occupy movement: We dona**t plan to interfere with voting

   Occupy Des Moines, an offshoot of an anti-Wall Street protest group, last
   week announced plans to launch nonviolent sit-ins inside campaign offices
   in the final week before the Iowa caucuses. Some of the groupa**s members
   have said they expect large-scale arrests, but they have emphasized they
   do not plan to commit violence or interfere with voting.

   a**There might be some overlapa** in what the groups believe, a**but
   Anonymous speaks for themselves and the Occupy Movement speaks for
   itself,a** said David Goodner, a demonstrator who often speaks on behalf
   of Occupy Des Moines. a**Whether the public can understand that or not,
   Ia**m not sure, but for me therea**s a clear difference.a**

   State officials were preparing for a variety of public safety scenarios
   associated with the Iowa caucuses before the video was released, said John
   Benson, a public information officer for Iowaa**s Homeland Security and
   Emergency Management Division

   a**Obviously with the video that theya**ve put out and some of the other
   work theya**re doing, that certainly increases your overall awareness,a**
   Benson said. a**But to say wea**re going to do something specific in our
   planning process, we cana**t say that right now, but it certainly has our
   attention.a**

   Party leaders: Let caucuses proceed

   Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn said the partya**s state
   central committee will discuss the situation at its next meeting.

   a**Successive generations of Iowans of both political parties have worked
   awfully hard to make sure Iowans have this opportunity to participate in
   this first-in-the-nation caucus,a** Strawn said. a**I certainly will do
   anything in my power to keep outside agitators from ruining something that
   a lot of people have worked very hard for over a long period of time.a**

   The integrity of the Iowa caucuses would be eroded should attempts to shut
   them down be successful, said Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue
   Dvorsky.

   a**If anyone is coming and planning to make it so the participants of the
   caucus cannot have a civil and civic conversation, then of course that
   would erode the integrity of the caucuses, and it flies in the face of
   what the caucuses are,a** Dvorsky said. a**Theya**re the most basic
   long-standing tradition in this country of neighbors coming together to
   talk about political issues.a**

   She continued: a**Ia**m hoping Iowans can protect their ability to speak
   freely and respectfully with their neighbors.a**

   About Anonymous

   Anonymous emerged in 2003 from an Internet chat channel where members
   organized web incidents for their own amusement.

   By 2008, the prankster nature of Anonymous morphed into a**hacktivism,a**
   where members sabotaged websites and leaked confidential information for
   political purposes, according to law enforcement authorities.

   The group has no formal leadership and is generally considered to be more
   of a movement than an organization. As the name implies, its members
   generally dona**t identify themselves.

   The group has generally concentrated on Internet hacking. This summer, it
   claimed credit for hacking into a Booz Allen Hamilton website and leaking
   email addresses of 90,000 U.S. military personnel and hacking a Monsanto
   Co. website and releasing personal data on 2,500 employees.

   Sources: USA Today and the Associated Press

   --
   Sean Noonan
   Tactical Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967
   www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-10 14:15:47",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/746568_re-ct-anonymous-and-occupy-divergence-in-the-iowa-caucuses-.html","peter.zeihan@stratfor.com","mailto:ct@stratfor.com","ct@stratfor.com,sean.noonan@stratfor.com",""
748498,"[CT] Police move to shut down Occupy camps
","             Protesters arrested as police clear Occupy encampments

   By Ashley Hayes, CNN
   updated 4:57 PM EST, Sun November 13, 2011

   (CNN) -- Numerous arrests took place in several Western cities as police
   moved in to clear Occupy encampments over the weekend, authorities said.

   In Portland, Oregon, unrest continued into Sunday morning as protesters
   defied a midnight Saturday deadline for the Occupy encampments to close.

   Tensions abated later Sunday as police attempted to peacefully close city
   parks, but flared at one park when protesters refused to leave. Police
   said on Twitter those refusing to leave Chapman Square were being
   arrested.

   Portland police Sgt. Pete Simpson estimated Sunday afternoon that more
   than a dozen people were arrested. Chapman Square was the last city park
   where protesters were gathered, as the others had been vacated as of
   Sunday afternoon, he said.

   Video posted on the website of CNN affiliate KGW showed officers in riot
   gear holding batons facing off with protesters. Simpson said the officers
   were in the gear as a precaution, and were joined by other assisting
   agencies. \"We needed the manpower because we used up a lot of resources
   yesterday (Saturday),\" he said.

   The operation was \"pretty methodical,\" although a few demonstrators had
   scuffled with officers, he said.

   Video showed authorities dismantling tents at the camp.

   Once the parks are cleared, temporary fencing will be erected so repairs
   can be made, Simpson said. The parks are \"pretty beat up,\" he added.

   One officer was struck in the leg earlier Sunday by a projectile thrown
   from a crowd, and was taken to a hospital, but the injuries were not
   life-threatening, authorities said. One protester was arrested in a
   separate incident overnight, Simpson said.

   Video from the scene showed masses of protesters on downtown streets. In
   the early-morning hours Sunday, police told demonstrators to leave the
   streets or face arrest. All but two of the demonstrators followed that
   order, retreating into several parks, KGW reported.

   \"A lot of people packed up and left today,\" police Lt. Robert King said.
   But hundreds of people showed up in the early morning hours -- some of
   whom have not been affiliated with the Occupy movement until now --
   apparently hoping to witness a police confrontation, King said.

   Early Sunday, Mayor Sam Adams praised police for showing professionalism
   in a \"very tense situation.\"

   Police declared the parks closed as of midnight, Simpson said, \"and
   they'll remain closed. They're not going to be open until they're
   repaired.\"

   Police and parks department employees were on the scene for the closures,
   helping people and removing debris from parks, he said. Those who needed a
   place to stay were being referred to shelters, Simpson said.

   \"We're going to be very patient,\" Adams said earlier Sunday. \"I'm
   prioritizing patience ... In order for us to do this peacefully, we need
   the time and folks on the ground need the time to do their work right.\"

   One member of Occupy Portland, however, said demonstrators were not
   planning to budge.

   \"We're talking about issues that matter to people's lives,\" Kari Koch told
   CNN. Authorities can order them to leave, but protesters have a right to
   assembly and a right to free speech, she said. \"We're not going to back
   down and leave the parks just because it's inconvenient for the mayor to
   have us here.\"

   The Occupy Portland movement, on Twitter, was calling for additional
   protesters as camps were coming down.

   What started as the Occupy Wall Street movement in New York in September
   has spread across major cities worldwide as a call to action against
   unequal distribution of wealth.

   In Philadelphia, Mayor Michael Nutter said Sunday he was increasing police
   presence near the Occupy Philly camp and asking the city's police
   commissioner to \"establish structures and strategic positioning and
   deployment of officers on a regular basis in that location.\"

   What began as a peaceful protest 39 days ago has given way to increasing
   public safety and public health concerns, Nutter told reporters.

   A woman reported she was sexually assaulted Saturday night in a tent at
   the encampment, Nutter said. In addition, there is the threat of fire near
   historic City Hall and concerns about litter, public urination, defecation
   and graffiti, he said.

   Numerous reports of thefts and assaults in the encampment have been made,
   and 15 emergency medical runs were made between October 6 and November 11,
   he said.

   In addition, a maintenance project is set to begin soon on City Hall, one
   of several, he said. A $50 million renovation is planned for Dilworth
   Plaza, where protesters have camped.

   Occupy Philly's general assembly voted Friday night not to move from the
   plaza, and members have not responded in recent weeks to expressions of
   concern from the city, which has repeatedly tried to work with the
   protesters, he said. \"Many of the people that we talked to in the
   beginning of this event and activity are now gone,\" he said.

   \"We have things we need to do,\" Nutter said. \"I understand that they have
   things on their mind as Americans and wish to express their free speech. I
   understand that, I get that, I've defended that. The things we're talking
   about, the activities that are going on, are not about free speech.
   They're public health and public safety concerns that have nothing to do
   with Wall Street and corporations.\"

   The protesters are \"purposely standing in the way of nearly 1,000 jobs for
   Philadelphians at a time of high unemployment,\" Nutter said. \"They are
   blocking Philadelphians from taking care of their families.\"

   \"Misconduct is not about free speech,\" the mayor said, \"and the behavior
   we're now seeing is running squarely into the needs of our city government
   that also represents the 99%. As mayor of the city of Philadelphia, I
   represent the 99% also.\"

   CNN affiliate WPVI reported a suspect was arrested in the alleged sexual
   assault.

   Meanwhile, in Salt Lake City, police said on Twitter 19 people were
   arrested Saturday night as authorities moved in to clear an Occupy Salt
   Lake encampment at a downtown park.

   Police had ordered protesters to leave the park after a man was found dead
   late Thursday night. The cause of death was thought to be carbon monoxide
   poisoning and a drug overdose, CNN affiliate KSTU reported.

   \"We can no longer tolerate individuals camping on our streets,\" Salt Lake
   City Police Chief Chris Burbank told reporters.

   However, \"only camping is over,\" Salt Lake City Mayor Ralph Becker's
   office said on Twitter -- protests can continue at the park. KSTU reported
   authorities said protesters would be allowed to have a 24-hour presence
   and one building, but the tents had to go.

   Since camping began at the park, Becker's office said in the statement,
   \"local law enforcement has responded to a dramatically increased amount of
   criminal activity in the park, and has made over 90 arrests in the area
   since early October.\"

   A melee involving 30 people on Wednesday night led to four arrests,
   Becker's office said, and public safety \"has become increasingly
   questionable. Additionally, the amount of human and animal waste, as well
   as drug paraphernalia, is an escalating public concern.\"

   As police moved in Saturday evening, according to video from the scene,
   protesters chanted, \"This is what a police state looks like.\"

   \"Our rights to assembly, which are embodied in the First Amendment, are
   still being violated,\" protester Jesse Fruhwirth told KSTU. \"Our
   forefathers are speaking to us, telling us that this is what assembly
   looks like. Not being able to camp here severely limits the ability of us
   to keep our coalition together.\"

   \"Many thanks to all for a peaceful resolution,\" Salt Lake City police
   tweeted late Saturday.

   In Denver, police in riot gear arrested 17 people Saturday night as they
   cleared furniture and tents from an Occupy encampment near the city's
   civic center, police spokesman Sonny Jackson told CNN. The main issue, he
   said, was that the items were blocking a right of way.

   \"People are welcome to come back and protest, but we don't want them to do
   it in a way that's not safe,\" Jackson said.

   In Oakland, California, police issued a third notice for demonstrators to
   vacate city parks on Saturday, police spokeswoman Officer Johnna Watson
   told CNN. The protesters had not complied with that order, Watson said.

   A second notice was issued Saturday morning after a fatal shooting near
   the camp, according to CNN affiliate KCBS.  A man in his early 20s was
   shot Friday. Authorities said one of the suspects has been \"a frequent
   resident at the encampment over the past several days,\" KCBS said.

   Also Saturday, 27 protesters were arrested in St. Louis after defying an
   existing park curfew, authorities said.

   Ben West
   Tactical Analyst
   STRATFOR
   512-744-4300
   ext. 4340
","2011-11-13 23:03:57",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/748498_-ct-police-move-to-shut-down-occupy-camps-.html","ben.west@stratfor.com","mailto:ct@stratfor.com","ct@stratfor.com",""
758143,"Re: [CT] Anonymous 101: Introduction to the Lulz
","   So far extremely underwhelming, as expected. 

   10 points to whoever came up with this phrase \"ultra-coordinated
   motherfuckery\" 

   Unfortunately it is applied to people who are completely uncoordinated and
   couldn't fuck anything.  You can be sure I will find a better use for this
   phrase in the future.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"CT AOR\" <ct@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2011 2:48:49 PM
   Subject: [CT] Anonymous 101: Introduction to the Lulz

   pretty good cultural overview of anon but useless in terms of figuring out
   \"tactical\" details.

   On 11/8/11 1:30 PM, Melissa Taylor wrote:

 Haven't read it, but looks very interesting.  This is Part I.

 Recommend reading at link for pics.


 Anonymous 101: Introduction to the Lulz

 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/anonymous-101/all/1

 November 8, 2011  |
 5:30 am

 (Any decent coverage of Anonymous is going to verge on some NSFW material at points. There will be questionable language and strange imagery.)

 Last week the net and the media were ablaze with the news that Anonymous might be taking on the Zeta drug cartel in Mexico, a story that has morphed into wider drug corruption story, and led to one American law enforcement official in North Carolina being named as a gang conspirator.

 Also this year, anons released documents on, or d0xed, several police organization and one prominent police vendor in retaliation for heavy-handed law enforcement reactions to occupations associated with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Theya**ve fought with child pornographers, hacked Sony repeatedly, and even tried to releasing compromising pictures to blackmail Bay Area Rapid Transit spokesman Linton Johnson into resigning. (Johnson claimed to have authored and then defended BARTa**s controversial decision to shut off mobile phone service in BART stations to pre-empt an anti-police brutality protest.)

 Theya**ve created law enforcement excitement thata**s verged on panic, given net and media pundits hyperbolic logorrhea about a**cyber terrorisma** and a**cyber freedoma**, and happily skipped between damn funny, deeply disturbing, and self-aggrandizing, depending on the mood of the hive mind at the moment.

 But what is Anonymous?

 In this in-depth series a**Anonymous: Beyond the Mask,a** wea**re going to do our best to answer that.

 NYU Professor and Anonymous researcher Biella Coleman compares Anonymous to the trickster god archetype.

 a**The trickster does exist across America, across Europe, really across the world and it is not in myth but in embodied in group and living practice: in that of the prankster, hacker, the phreaker, the troller (all of whom, have their own unique elements of course, but so does each trickster),a** she wrote in Social Text.

 The trickster isna**t the good guy or the bad guy, ita**s the character that exposes contradictions, initiates change and moves the plot forward. One minute, the loving and heroic trickster is saving civilization. A few minutes later the same trickster is cruel, kicking your ass and eating babies as a snack.

 The conversation about Anonymous points to this trickster nature, veering between praise and fear, with the media at a loss for even how to describe them.

 Wea**ve tried hacker group, notorious hacker group, hacktivists, the Internet Hate Machine, pimply-faced, basement-dwelling teenagers, an activist organization, a movement, a collective, a vigilante group, online terrorists, and any number of other fantastical and colorful terms. None of them have ever really fit. Anonymous has constantly forced us to reach for the thesaurus a** revealing that as a whole, we in the media have no idea what Anonymous really is or what it means.

 It wasna**t until I downloaded and listened to Lulz: A corruption of LOLa**s second album, Corruption, that I grasped what Anonymous really is.

 Ita**s a culture.

 It takes cultures to have albums, idioms, and iconography, and I was swimming in these and more. Anonymous is a nascent and small culture, but one with its own aesthetics and values, art and literature, social norms and ways of production, and even its own dialectic language.

 It is no wonder we in the media and the wider culture are often confused. Any study of Anonymous must be anthropological, taking into account the way people exist in different societies. The media has just been looking for an organization with a leader who could explain why Anonymous seems to do weird things. Not only that, but Anonymous seems to be built around doing weird things, and even has a term for it: the lulz.

 The lulz (a corruption of LOL, online shorthand for laugh out loud) is the most important and abstract thing to understand about Anonymous, and perhaps the internet itself. The lulz is laughing instead of screaming. Ita**s a laughter of embarrassment and separation. Ita**s schadenfreude. Ita**s not the anesthetic humor that makes days go by easier, ita**s humor that heightens contradictions. The lulz is laughter with pain in it. It forces you to consider injustice and hypocrisy, whichever side of it you are on in that moment.

 In the culture of Anonymous, the lulz is the reason for doing. Anonymous wasna**t made for easy times; the trickster sleeps when all is well.
 Inevitablity

 Cultures dona**t emerge from vacuums, and Anonymous is no exception. The birthplace of Anonymous is a website called 4chan founded in 2003, that developed an a**anything goesa** random section known as the /b/ board. 4chan itself comes from Japanese language predecessor called 2chan, founded in 2001. Before that, the lulz and hacker pranking was alive and well in old-school IRC chat rooms, EFnet, and the 1990s hacker scene.

 But if youa**re going back that far, add as influences Mondo 2000, and publications like RE/Search, and a billion shitty zines that were dead by 1996. But those all came from something, too.

 Hacker culture, and almost all of computer culture back in the day is shot through with the Discordian edge of 1960/1970s counter-culture and Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Sheaa**s Illuminatus. So from there ita**s the yippies, Andy Kaufmann, and the Situationists we need to first comprehend, or do we head back to early 20th century absurdists of Dada? Or maybe we venture all the way to that olde booke of epic trolling lulze, Tristram Shandy?

 Wea**re all the way to 1759 now.

 Perhaps this means the 1960s Discordians are right, and therea**s a Ha Ha Only Serious giggle that is cosmic in nature. That there is a part of reality, a force of physics, that is actually a Fundamental Sense of Humor. But the gravity we deal with can only be explained to an even larger amount of Dark Humor, woven into the fabric of the universe.

 The point is Anonymous, despite the false shock of contemporary news reporting, isna**t sui generis. Ita**s not a surprise, and it didna**t spring fully formed from the forehead of Ceiling Cat.

 In this place and time, with the exhaustion of political discourse, the overwhelming pressures of modern life, and rise of the internet, the stochastic network organism of Anonymous was inevitable.

 I will confess up front that I love Anonymous, but not because I think theya**re the heroes.

 Like Alan Moorea**s character V who inspired Anonymous to adopt the Guy Fawkes mask as an icon and fashion item, youa**re never quite sure if Anonymous is the hero or antihero. The trickster is attracted to change and the need for change, and thata**s where Anonymous goes. But they are not your personal army a** thata**s Rule 44 a** yes, there are rules. And when they do something it never goes quite as planned. The internet has no neat endings.

 The trickster as myth proved so compelling that the network made it real. Anonymous, the neta**s trickster, emerged like supernatural movie monster out of the misty realm of ideas and into the real world.

 a**Ultra-coordinated motherfuckerya**

 But to be historical, leta**s start with 4chan.org, a wildly popular board for sharing images and talking about them, and in particular, 4chana**s /b/ board (Really, really, NSFW). /b/ is a web forum where posts have no author names and there are no archives and ita**s explicitly about anything at all. This technological format meeting with the internet in the early 21st Century gave birth to Anonymous, and it remains the mothera**s teat from which Anonymous sucks. (Rule 22)

 Once you pull your hands away from your face and start looking, /b/ is hard to look away from.

 /b/ is the id of the internet, the collective unconsciousa**s version of the place from which the base drives arise. There is no sophistication in the slurs, sexuality, and destruction in the savage landscape of /b/ a** it is the natural state of networked man.

 In this, it has a kind of innocence and purity. Terms like a**niggera** and a**faggota** are common, but not there because of racism and bigotry a** though racism and bigotry are easily found there. Their use is there to keep you out. These words are heads on pikes warning you that further in it gets much worse, and it does.

 Nearly any human appetite is acceptable, nearly any flaw exploited, and probably photographed with a time stamp. But /b/ reminds us that the id is the seat of creative energy. Much of it, hell even most of it, is harmless or even sweet. People reach out for help on /b/, and they find encouragement and advice. The id and /b/ are the foxholes of those who feel powerless and disenfranchised.

 Thata**s what youa**ll find in /b/, the unspoken. a**/b/tardsa**, as denizens of the board are called and call themselves, create incest porn, fantasize about beating women, look for dataviz examples or coding tips. They are grown men that really want to talk about a**My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.a** Maybe ita**s ironic, maybe ita**s not. (Ia**m told by one such brony that the show is just a lot better than youa**d expect.)

 At some moment lost in its unrecorded history, /b/ and Anonymous reached an inflection point, and the id spilled into the rest of the net in the form of a**ultra-coordinated motherfuckery,a** as one anon described it Coleman. This was the ability to use the technological tools of social coordination so quickly and well that anons working together could collectively attack targets for any perceived slight, or just for fun, without those targets ever having a chance to see it coming or defend themselves.

 These came to be called a**raids.a**

 Over time raids took many forms, eventually moving into the regular world. They could look like protests, massively coordinated pranks, distributed denial of service attacks (DDOS) or straight-up hacking attacks. D0xing, ordering unpaid pizzas, signing people up for embarrassing junk mail were all common raids. Therea**s a raid that you know for sure. Ita**s likely youa**ve even participated, and even more likely youa**ve been a victim of it; the rickroll. The rickroll began as a tool of the /b/tard/Anonymous raid, before spreading so far into the culture that the Oregon legislature and even the US Speaker of the House were rickrolling the world.

 Anonymous spat out other memes like lolcats and pedobear that spread far enough for their origins to be lost to many, but with little profound effect on the rest of the world.

 Even then Anonymous had a vigilante streak, and it could be downright mean. Theya**d d0x someone who abused a cat. In particular they went after abusers of cats, because Anonymous loves cats and pictures of cats. They blocked the pool at the online kida**s game Habbo Hotel with black, generously froa**d avatars declaring a**Pool is closed due to AIDSa** as a protest to perceived racism on the part of Habboa**s admins.

 But Anonymous was never particularly focused. Raids could be devastating or funny, but either way they came and went quickly, the neta**s own little tornado system. Anonymous was never anyonea**s personal army, and never stayed on any one topic for very long.

 It took Tom Cruise to change all that and give Anonymous a political consciousness. Specifically, Tom Cruise as cringe-worthy Scientologist.

 Birth of the a**Moralfagsa**

 A video of a disturbingly manic Cruise leaked out of Scientology in January 2008, and the notably litigious church tried to force hosting services and Gawker to take it down with legal nastygrams.

 But the video contained some truly epic lulz, and Anonymous wouldna**t let it die. The churcha**s effort to kill it off so enraged Anons they decided to destroy the church itself. By enraged, I mean a pissy kind of laughing and spitting at once. For Anonymous being mad meant wanting to troll the church very hard, but it was never to get serious, because getting serious for Anons meant losing.

 To accomplish this op (short for operation), Anons created Project Chanology, which arguably marked both the birth of political consciousness for Anonymous, and the development of its methods of taking mass action.

 Destroying the church was going to be aggro funny, as well as require a lot of dancing. Many have wondered since then, were they serious about destroying the church, or was it all a joke?

 The answer is yes, and understanding that is vital to understanding Anonymous.

 Therea**s no proof that the people that started Project Chanology had any personal beefs against the Church of Scientology beyond their secondhand annoyance at the Churcha**s litigious history and attempted suppression of speech. But probably most importantly, the Church was rampantly guilty of feeding the trolls. (Rule 14)

 But Project Chanology was the perfect way for the people who did have a history with Scientology to jump under the wing of the haughty and lulzy collective. Scientology had pursued its detractors with mean spirited ruthlessness, delving into critica**s personal lives, following them with investigators and ruining their reputations.

 Anonymous didna**t care. Call them rapists, and theya**d laughingly tell you they were child rapists. Accuse them of any crime, and they could point to worse on /b/. Anonymity and the a**words will never hurt mea** ethic that arose out of the aesthetic of extremes on 4chan made them immune to the Churcha**s arsenal.

 But some existing Anons, and the ones that came in from the community of Scientology detractors, really cared about winning this one. They wanted to be the good guys and Scientology to play the bad guys. The Church, they reasoned, hurt people, took their money, and lied to them under the guise of being caretakers and teachers.

 Anonymous claimed to do all those bad things too, but didna**t really, and would never promise to take care of you and teach you, but sometimes did anyway.

 As Coleman put it in her study, they were the perfect nemeses. But Anons caring about doing the right thing is about morality, and morality, at least straight morality, is not the lulz. Many veterans saw this as a corruption of the purity of Anonymous a** the cancer that was killing /b/.

 On February 10, 2008, the a**moralfagsa** took the whole thing to a new level. They set up meeting times and places in cities around the world, bought masks and made signs.

 Anons left the internet by the thousands and showed up in front of church locations and Scientology centers around the world, many wearing their new Guy Fawkes masks, V for Vendetta movie merchandise sold by Warner Brothers, to obscure their identities.

 They played music and walked around with signs which both accused Scientology of crimes and referenced obscure internet memes. They met each other in meat space for the first time. They partied with their own in front of aghast Scientologists in more than 90 cities.

 For the first time, the internet had shown up on the real street, en masse.

 And yes, they brought Long Cat.

 Coming soon: Part Two: Three Years of Epic Trolling the Church of Scientology, the LOIC, and OpPayback

 This post is part of a special series from Quinn Norton, who is embedding with Occupy protestors and going beyond the headlines with Anonymous for Wired.com. For an introduction to the series, read Quinna**s description of the project.


 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

   --
   Sean Noonan
   Tactical Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967
   www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-08 23:55:18",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/758143_re-ct-anonymous-101-introduction-to-the-lulz-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","mailto:ct@stratfor.com","ct@stratfor.com",""
791684,"BBC Monitoring Alert - IRAN
","    Iran TV releases footage of \"kidnapped\" researcher State-run Iranian TV  
    Channel two (IRTV1) in its 1600 gmt bulletin on 7 June broadcast a video 
    report on Shahram Amiri, an Iranian researcher, who had disappeared      
    about a year ago in Saudi Arabia's Medina and Iran says that in fact he  
    had been kidnapped.                                                      
                                                                             
    The news reader said: \"The Islamic Republic of Iran announced recently   
    that it has documents and proofs indicating that Shahram Amiri had been  
    kidnapped through an operation by the American intelligence forces and   
    transferred to America. A few days ago a video clip was received from    
    Shahram Amiri by the Iranian intelligence body which reveals the truth.\" 
                                                                             
    Video showed Shahram Amiri in a room with headphones on while recording  
    his message on 5 April 2010. He introduced himself and said: \"I'm        
    Shahram Amiri, an expert and researcher of Malek Ashtar University of    
    Technology. At the moment I'm in Tucsan, a city in America's Arizona. I  
    was kidnapped in a joint operation by the American intelligence, CIA's   
    terror and kidnap teams and Saudi's Istikhbarat on 13 Khordad 1388 [3    
    June 2009] from Medina. They took me to a house located somewhere that I 
    didn't know. They gave me an anaesthetic injection. When I became        
    conscious I was in a big [voice interrupted] towards America During the  
    eight months that I was kept in America, I was subject to the most       
    severe tortures and psychological pressures by the American intelligence 
    investigation groups. And the main aim behind these investigation teams  
    and the pressure imposed on me was to make me take part in an interview  
    conducted by an American media source and claim that I was! an important 
    figure in Iran's nuclear programme and I had sought asylum in America at 
    my own will. And [to say] while seeking asylum I took some very          
    important documents and a laptop with classified information on Iran's   
    military nuclear programme in it to America from my country The main aim 
    from this was to impose political pressure on the Islamic Republic of    
    Iran and in fact condemning [Iran] and proving lies that America has     
    been constantly saying against the Islamic Republic of Iran.\"            
                                                                             
    He urged human rights bodies and organizations for their support and to  
    help him to go back to Iran.                                             
                                                                             
    The news reader said the video had reached the Iran \"through special     
    means\".                                                                  
                                                                             
    Source: Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 2, Tehran, in     
    Persian 1600 gmt 7 Jun 10                                                
                                                                             
    BBC Mon alert ME1 MEPol sr                                               

              (c) Copyright British Broadcasting Corporation 2010
","2010-06-07 16:51:05",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/791684_bbc-monitoring-alert-iran-.html","marketing@mon.bbc.co.uk","","translations@stratfor.com",""
866124,"Random Business Idea - Network Security
","   I'm sure this has been thought of before at STRATFOR so excuse the
   redundancy. I was reading a solid Forbes article on Assange and it said
   that a large number of deep pocket corporations were looking into
   leak-focused network security after these Wikileak episodes.

   I was wondering if it was possible for us to get some of that
   \"leak-focused\" gravy train. This is an obvious fear sale, so that's a good
   thing. And we have something to offer that the IT security companies
   don't, mainly our focus on counter-intelligence and surveillance that Fred
   and Stick know better than anyone on the planet.

   We do a lot of good work with all the personal/executive security analysis
   as well. Could we develop some ideas and procedures on the idea of
   \"leak-focused\" network security that focuses on preventing one's own
   employees from leaking sensitive information.

   The point here is that I am sure there are certain procedures and
   precautions that companies should employ that go beyond installing network
   security network to deal with potential leaks. In fact, Im not so sure
   this is an IT problem that requires an IT solution.

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-09 02:38:51",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/866124_random-business-idea-network-security-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
868821,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   yes, marc called them a mob - and that seems accurate

   On 10/24/11 1:33 PM, scott stewart wrote:

     Good point. 
     In terrorist terms they are more like grassroots people than AQ core. 
     From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
     Reply-To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:11:05 -0500
     To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
     Somehow we have to stop referring to 'anonymous' as a monolith.  They
     are a bunch of different people that essentially get together in an
     online-form of a mob to carry out some action. I'm not sure how to do
     this in writing consistently.  But let's start with shit like 'people
     joining Anonymous chatrooms and claiming to be part of the movement' or
     something like that. 

     Comments in green below.  This is coming together nicely. 

     On 10/24/11 11:19 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of
       these in the US?
        What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
       I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
       whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
       because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
       revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of
       understanding of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is
       expendable to cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of
       coercion.

       Anonymous does not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
       cartels.  mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of
       el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication
       as a tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable
       intelligence, the government will use it against the cartels. That's a
       physical threat, if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify
       that Anonymous can not directly effect physical security. Any impact
       to the cartel in revealing information will be from actions of rival
       cartels or the GoM. They may release information on a given politician
       being linked to the cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the
       politician will feel an impact (Just because Anonymous says there is a
       link, doesn't make it true). It would be up to others to take action. 
       I think the way you have it worded in the above sentence is good. 
       Follow with a sentence explaining the rest of it, because readers will
       have the same question Karen did.  Something like 'Rather, the threat
       to cartels would come in what information anonymous could expose that
       is useful to their enemies'

       Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online
       activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to
       conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't know how
       much, but we do know they will have some points of operational
       vulnerability I have heard of cartels doing business online, but don't
       have specific examples which could be used in assessing their
       vulnerability online.

       by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired,
       arrested or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I
       should say, there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out
       politicians as colluding.
       On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

         Karen Hooper
         Latin America Analyst
         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
         c: 512.750.7234
         STRATFOR
         www.stratfor.com
         On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
         Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
         possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
         Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by people using
         the banner of Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on
         cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
         find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual
         being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico
         and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual
         posting flyers ['critical of cartels'?] in Veracruz as part of the
         Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation. [this is
         good and will be enough information to go with, though you'll need a
         quick explanation of what 'operation paperstorm' is.  Adding
         something in the explaining the flyers will work]

         Link: themeData
         Anonymous, a decentralized hacker collective  famous for distributed
         denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government and corporate
         websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
         statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video
         depicting a masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on
         October 10? With the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold
         threats towards the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as
         releasing identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
         journalists who collude with criminal cartels do they specify
         whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of these in the US?
          What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
         group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
         face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
         was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
         their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
         potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
         presents a unique threat towards TCOs [If TCO= transnational
         criminal organization, it's not really unique.  Many such
         organizations do their crimes online, and have been hacked in
         response--like the nigerian princess scams. I think you should just
         say it's a unique threat to DTOs] . We know of cartels lashing out
         at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels
         dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

         What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
              o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
         threat to Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a
         gun to the head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for
         the using publication as a tool to force government action. If you
         reveal actionable intelligence, the government will use it against
         the cartels. That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
              o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
         media
              o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out
         at cartels

         While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
         threat, if it had access to certain types of information:

                 -The threat is in the information they can expose that may
     be of use to any cartel enemies.  That could be to the government or
     other cartels or even local citizens (the last one may be a stretch, but
     i could imagine someone discrediting cartel members in the eyes of the
     public).

              o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims tocut possess
         identifiable information on cartel members 
              o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
         cartels [cut this part here, and make the point at the end of this
         section/paragraph]
              o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
         identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in
         the realm of possibilities for
                     Anonymous
                     o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
         illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels
         are known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We
         don't know how much, but we do know they will have some points of
         operational vulnerability

        -They claim to have information on those that collude with cartels 
     (use the stuff you have above].  Releasing such information could hurt
     cartels' support networks, but most of these people are also easily
     replaceable. 
                 -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents
     have access to, and doubt they have such information that provides any
     sort of existential threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 

         Most Anonymous hackers are likely far removed from the ultra-violent
         world of drug trafficking in Mexico, but it's quite possible that
         some of its members in this campaign are in Mexico and opposed to
         the violence [or something like that.  my limited understanding is
         there are still activist crusader-types in Mexico, yeah?  it seems
         very possible those with a bit of time or computer skills could have
         joined up with anonymous] . As a result, their understanding of
         cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous members in other
         countries may act with confidence when sitting in front of a
         computer, but this may blind them to any possible retribution. They
         may not even know the impact of any online assault of cartels.  [the
         part below and above is written rather normatively.  We need to take
         that out.  just state the facts]
              o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists
         will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these
         individuals are forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi
         drivers are often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
         halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals will not have
         a significant impact on cartel                   operations.
         Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
         Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any
         consequences from this. by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you
         mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and that happens all
         the time.
              o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels
         are willing to go protect their operations.
                 o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                 o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
         community before, coercing computer science majors into working for
         them.
                 o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
         discovering hackers within Mexico.
         need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply
         publishing tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the
         same camp as the bloggers  [yes, i think it needs to be clear that
         their damage will be similar to what bloggers or wikileaks can
         do--limited.  But maybe more a danger to themselves, since they are
         no longer challenging governments, but criminal organizations]

          

         On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

           Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but
           there are several issues to address and fix here.

           These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
           discussion:

                o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but
           we can't gloss over that fact
                o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
           between stealing bank records from government computers and
           overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
           information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
           kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
           talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
           politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
           going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
           killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
           operational details, because they acted as informants, because
           they exposed links with officials or because they somehow sullied
           the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of information is
           damaging to the cartels themselves?
                o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
           realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure
           of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for
           the technical ability by a very small number of its members to
           infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal information.
           Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on a network that
           is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
           information be found? Government databases? Once we know what kind
           of information is accessible, we can also know more about the
           consequences of dissemination.
                o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
           back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings
           done by people who may not understand the difference between an
           anon hacker and a blogger.

           On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

             wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

             -------- Original Message --------

              Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                 From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
             Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                   To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

             you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a
             lot more work

             You need to lay out:

             a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section
             is unclear
             b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
             therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
             c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
             d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone
             who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

             I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
             insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant
             levels of sophistication in their online presence, to include
             the use of cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
             is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
             business online, in a protected fashion.

             Karen Hooper
             Latin America Analyst
             o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
             c: 512.750.7234
             STRATFOR
             www.stratfor.com
             On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

             On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             Link: themeData

             Trigger

             Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
             Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed
             out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
             denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released
             depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a screen?
             exactly when?.  With the most recent video release, Anonymous
             makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels. Threats such as
             releasing identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
             politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels.
             The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped
             member otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
             between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
             unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly different
             operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
             Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
             believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
             not believe for a second that the cartels have no experience
             with hackers.

              

             In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned
             as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their
             demands of releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned
             right up front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening
             to hit back. Provide enough details so we understand who this
             guy is and why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous'
             claims of possessing revealing information on cartel members and
             operations are true, cartels will likely respond with violence
             against individuals revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you
             mean Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public
             disclosure of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force the
             GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i
             don't understand what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten
             Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
             against Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will
             continue their threats against any individual using online media
             WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about
             bloggers here. against the cartels.

              

             The Battle Space

             Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
             realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere
             of the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience
             geographical boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
             exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They
             are physical people tho live in the real world. They have names
             and addresses - although most of them are likely outside of MX.)
              Anonymous' power base consists of their technical capabilities
             in hacking. Any information connected to the Internet is
             vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's of
             individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population
             could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
             has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big
             company with a website that brings in revenue, but it does not
             really matter if you don't run operations on the web. Los Z
             don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are also far less
             dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

             Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power
             base consists of the perceived anonymity that its members
             believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating
             through the internet. This gives an opening for people
             disgruntled by anything and everything to practice general
             dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity + audience = troll.
             Only a fraction of the large web of people who identify
             themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
             capability. 

             The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been
             from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

             The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
             Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
             maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
             commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
             and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight.
             There is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar
             capacity.  Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue
             and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
             experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels are
             always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence.
             While battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law
             Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in
             the flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted media
             outlets. Murdering journalists and online bloggers in order to
             cover details of their operations. ok... but that's kind of a
             red herrng for this discussion. You need to focus on the
             possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
             have no cyber presence.

              

             Anonymous' Weapons

             Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
             criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
             combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly
             disseminating sensitive information on cartels and propagating
             anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced websites in
             Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous
             admitted in their video to cartels, they cannot fight with
             guns.  The significance of a targeted information operations
             campaign by technically elite individuals can not be overlooked
             should not be underestimated. Cartels view main stream media
             outlets and social media blogs as such a threat to their
             operations, that they have continued to target journalists and
             bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was placed
             with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the body of a
             blogger. The message threatened any users who denounce cartels
             on blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not
             really addressing the subheading

             As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet
             risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest
             Anonymous is capable of possessing information they threaten to
             release. By releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
             Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
             individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
             information is limited by what is available via the Internet.
             Government computers connected to the Internet should always be
             considered a possibility of an attack. However, as with the
             compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer
             networks, information available to Mexico's intelligence
             collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to
             say here? This isn't clear at all

              

             Cartel's Defense

                         A counter response to the video? by the cartels has
             yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped
             member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the
             threat posed by hackers so... how has there not been a counter
             response? also this undermines your statements above about how
             Anonymous is soley internet based, and underlines the
             vulnerabilities of associated members. How did they find teh
             Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well give you
             some indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
             Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the
             cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed
             for them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies
             dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and
             we have good intel indicating that) they are working on
             disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can
             operate in any region of the world. Personal information
             including locations is only available if a hacker chooses to
             divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
             figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous. Cartels
             are only capable of dealing with their online enemy, if they can
             physically reach out to them. Or start employing hackers of
             their own under their payroll? Stranger things have happened,
             Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                         Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
             Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the
             help of computer science majors through personal threats has
             been reported in the past where? What cartels? reported where?. 
             Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence and drug
             trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of technical
             experts to help combat any threat by computer hackers.  While
             identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it
             is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
             operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies such
             as the FBi, with far more technical experience and resources
             than cartels, struggle to find hackers through investigations.
             A) How do you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they
             kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are
             equally difficult to track down

                         In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
             likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with,
             brute force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT
             operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they
             wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
             communities will likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel
             members.  Narco banners and public display of violence will
             likely continue to be used to scare online media into submission
             i'm not really seeing the online media-international hacking
             group connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
             inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
             encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of cartel
             violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will remain to be
             seen until cartels are able to seek out and capture members of
             the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the collective bluff
             and simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can
             inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:39:58",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/868821_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
868970,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Brown

   On 10/24/11 11:50 AM, Morgan Kauffman wrote:

     If you're going to cover the vigilante/robin-hood aspect, I found this
     in today's sweeps: 
     http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/10/anonymous-takes-down-darknet-child-porn-site-on-tor-network.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
     and 
     http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2395175,00.asp#fbid=KvMufY_Mq3a

     They've got a sub-group that tries to hunt down child-abuse sites and
     users - last week they published a list of 1500 names of visitors to one
     site, in addition to performing a couple of DDoS attacks to the server.

     On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

       Link: themeData

       I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to have a
       broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no nothing, or
       almost nothing about what this group is and the threat it poses.
       Reviewing their list of attacks
       (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most of the
       cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood of the internet
       . The interesting thing when it comes to their interactions with the
       cartels is the dubious role they play: at the same time they can be
       fighting crime by revealing cartel members/supporters, but they can
       also put lives in risk.

       However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by Anonymous.
       The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can conduct a cyber
       attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
       (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

       If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government websites,
       or if I am just a internet user, I would like to know more about these
       guys. Who they are? What are they interested in? How they operate? Who
       they have targeted so far? How can I defend myself from them? In what
       countries are they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use
       them to achieve any particular goal?

       On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

         nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else can
         build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they pose to
         innocent people caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing
         on journalists or taxi drivers they show little understanding of the
         situation.  This has long term implications in not just Mexico. 
         They don't consider the consequences of their actions and they act
         without understanding the environment.  It was the same when they
         released information on the Sony Playstation network to protest
         Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

         On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

           Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
           possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
           Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by Anonymous,
           threatens revealing personal information on cartels as well as
           states a member had been kidnapped. I could not find any sources
           outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being kidnapped.
           According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous
           Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual posting flyers in
           Veracruz as part of the Operation Paperstorm protest, although
           that is speculation.

           Link: themeData
           Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
           denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed
           out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
           Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked
           individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the
           most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
           the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing
           identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists
           who collude with criminal cartels. No mention of banks that accept
           their laundered money? That is when they would be a threat to
           their bottom line. They can always buy cabbies, cops, politicos
           and journos but tracing banks.  The hacker group demanded Los
           Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
           consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
           was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
           their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
           potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and
           hackers, presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels
           lashing out at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting
           on cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

           What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
           threat to Mexican cartels.
                o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
           media
                o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash
           out at cartels

           While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
           threat
                o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
           identifiable information on cartel members
                o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire
           on cartels
                o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
           communications, identifiable information on cartels members have
           to be considered in the realm of possibilities for
                       Anonymous
                       o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
           illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

           Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
           ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result,
           their understanding of cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous
           may act with confidence when sitting in front of a computer, but
           this may blind them to any possible retribution. They may not even
           know the impact of any online assault of cartels.
                o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists
           will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these
           individuals are forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi
           drivers are often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
           halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals will not
           have a significant impact on cartel                   operations.
           Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
           Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any
           consequences from this.
                o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels
           are willing to go protect their operations.
                   o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                   o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
           community before, coercing computer science majors into working
           for them.
                   o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
           discovering hackers within Mexico.

            

           On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

             Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but
             there are several issues to address and fix here.

             These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
             discussion:

                  o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine
             but we can't gloss over that fact
                  o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
             between stealing bank records from government computers and
             overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                  o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
             information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
             kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
             talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
             politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
             going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
             killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
             operational details, because they acted as informants, because
             they exposed links with officials or because they somehow
             sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
             information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                  o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
             realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a
             measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity
             except for the technical ability by a very small number of its
             members to infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal
             information. Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on
             a network that is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)?
             Where else could information be found? Government databases?
             Once we know what kind of information is accessible, we can also
             know more about the consequences of dissemination.
                  o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to
             trace back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of
             killings done by people who may not understand the difference
             between an anon hacker and a blogger.

             On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

               wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

               -------- Original Message --------

                Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                   Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                   From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
               Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                     To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

               you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need
               a lot more work

               You need to lay out:

               a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger
               section is unclear
               b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
               therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
               c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
               anything
               d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill
               anyone who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

               I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
               insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant
               levels of sophistication in their online presence, to include
               the use of cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
               is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
               business online, in a protected fashion.

               Karen Hooper
               Latin America Analyst
               o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
               c: 512.750.7234
               STRATFOR
               www.stratfor.com
               On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

               On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

               Link: themeData

               Trigger

               Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
               Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?,
               lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
               denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video
               released depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a
               screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent video release,
               Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels.
               Threats such as releasing identities of Mexican? American?
               taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists who collude
               with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas
               release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences.
               The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels
               and hackers, presents an unprecedented war front for the
               cartels. The vastly different operations of Anonymous and Los
               Zetas leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have
               little experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no
               experience with the cartels. I do not believe for a second
               that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                

               In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
               mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
               their demands of releasing a kidnapped member this should be
               mentioned right up front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is
               threatening to hit back. Provide enough details so we
               understand who this guy is and why/how he was abducted. are
               not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing revealing
               information on cartel members and operations are true, cartels
               will likely respond with violence against individuals revealed
               as opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous members?.
               It also is likely that public disclosure of GOM officials who
               collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving
               the Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this
               means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
               effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against
               Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will continue
               their threats against any individual using online media WC....
               you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers
               here. against the cartels.

                

               The Battle Space

               Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
               realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere
               of the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience
               geographical boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
               exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They
               are physical people tho live in the real world. They have
               names and addresses - although most of them are likely outside
               of MX.)  Anonymous' power base consists of their technical
               capabilities in hacking. Any information connected to the
               Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying
               the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's
               population could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of
               what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
               Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in
               revenue, but it does not really matter if you don't run
               operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money via
               e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on the web than
               the jihadists.)

               Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power
               base consists of the perceived anonymity that its members
               believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating
               through the internet. This gives an opening for people
               disgruntled by anything and everything to practice general
               dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity + audience =
               troll. Only a fraction of the large web of people who identify
               themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
               capability. 

               The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has
               been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

               The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US
               and Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking
               to maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
               commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
               and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from
               insight. There is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't
               have a similar capacity.  Their power base is built by large
               amounts of revenue and escalating brutal violence. Cartels
               like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing different types of
               threats. Cartels are always suffering at the hands of cartel
               on cartel violence. While battling each other, cartels still
               face arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to
               avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
               have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
               bloggers in order to cover details of their operations. ok...
               but that's kind of a red herrng for this discussion. You need
               to focus on the possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't
               just assume they have no cyber presence.

                

               Anonymous' Weapons

               Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
               criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability
               to combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly
               disseminating sensitive information on cartels and propagating
               anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced websites
               in Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous
               admitted in their video to cartels, they cannot fight with
               guns.  The significance of a targeted information operations
               campaign by technically elite individuals can not be
               overlooked should not be underestimated. Cartels view main
               stream media outlets and social media blogs as such a threat
               to their operations, that they have continued to target
               journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los
               Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on
               the body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
               denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive
               here, and it's not really addressing the subheading

               As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet
               risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to
               suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing information they
               threaten to release. By releasing identities of individuals
               cooperating with Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life
               of those individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate
               sensitive information is limited by what is available via the
               Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
               should always be considered a possibility of an attack.
               However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the US
               governments computer networks, information available to
               Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy to acquire. 
               what are you trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

                

               Cartel's Defense

                           A counter response to the video? by the cartels
               has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a
               kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun
               addressing the threat posed by hackers so... how has there not
               been a counter response? also this undermines your statements
               above about how Anonymous is soley internet based, and
               underlines the vulnerabilities of associated members. How did
               they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that could very
               well give you some indication to the technical ability of the
               cartels . As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
               wide web , the cartels will face a number of challenges which
               rarely are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has
               whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You
               can assume (and we have good intel indicating that) they are
               working on disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening
               cartels, can operate in any region of the world. Personal
               information including locations is only available if a hacker
               chooses to divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy
               enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only work for
               Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
               online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or
               start employing hackers of their own under their payroll?
               Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                           Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
               Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the
               help of computer science majors through personal threats has
               been reported in the past where? What cartels? reported
               where?.  Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence
               and drug trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of
               technical experts to help combat any threat by computer
               hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been
               demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable of
               identifying any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
               enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
               experience and resources than cartels, struggle to find
               hackers through investigations. A) How do you know they are
               not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm
               goign to assume that not all hackers are equally difficult to
               track down

                           In order to compete with an online foe, cartels
               will likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar
               with, brute force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT
               operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they
               wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
               communities will likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel
               members.  Narco banners and public display of violence will
               likely continue to be used to scare online media into
               submission i'm not really seeing the online
               media-international hacking group connection here.  The cruel
               manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer
               hackers have unlikely encountered before in their life.
               Whether the fear of cartel violence softens the confidence of
               Anonymous will remain to be seen until cartels are able to
               seek out and capture members of the hacker group.. Or the
               Narcos could call the collective bluff and simply go on and
               shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

 --
 Sincerely,

 Marko Primorac
 Tactical Analyst
 marko.primorac@stratfor.com
 Tel: +1 512.744.4300
 Cell: +1 717.557.8480
","2011-10-24 18:59:47",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/868970_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","marko.primorac@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
870971,"RE: Random Business Idea - Network Security
","   I believe this is the article Marko is talking about.

    

   WikiLeaks' next target is big business, Assange says

   Andy Greenberg, Forbes.com

   Date: Wed. Dec. 1 2010 7:39 PM ET

   http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20101201/forbes-assange-interview-101201/

    

   In a rare interview, Assange tells Forbes that the release of Pentagon and
   State Department documents are just the beginning. His next target: big
   business.

    

   Early next year, Julian Assange says, a major American bank will suddenly
   find itself turned inside out. Tens of thousands of its internal documents
   will be exposed on Wikileaks.org with no polite requests for executives'
   response or other forewarnings. The data dump will lay bare the finance
   firm's secrets on the Web for every customer, every competitor, every
   regulator to examine and pass judgment on.

    

   When? Which bank? What documents? Cagey as always, Assange won't say, so
   his claim is impossible to verify. But he has always followed through on
   his threats. Sitting for a rare interview in a London garden flat on a
   rainy November day, he compares what he is ready to unleash to the damning
   e-mails that poured out of the Enron trial: a comprehensive vivisection of
   corporate bad behavior. \"You could call it the ecosystem of corruption,\"
   he says, refusing to characterize the coming release in more detail. \"But
   it's also all the regular decision making that turns a blind eye to and
   supports unethical practices: the oversight that's not done, the
   priorities of executives, how they think they're fulfilling their own
   self-interest.\"

    

   This is Assange: a moral ideologue, a champion of openness, a control
   freak. He pauses to think-a process that occasionally puts our
   conversation on hold for awkwardly long interludes. The slim 39-year-old
   WikiLeaks founder wears a navy suit over his 6-foot-2 frame, and his once
   shaggy white hair, recently dyed brown, has been cropped to a sandy
   patchwork of blonde and tan. He says he colors it when he's \"being
   tracked.\"

    

   \"These big-package releases. There should be a cute name for them,\" he
   says, then pauses again.

    

   \"Megaleaks?\" I suggest, trying to move things along.

    

   \"Yes, that's good-megaleaks.\" His voice is a hoarse, Aussie-tinged
   baritone. As a teenage hacker in Melbourne its pitch helped him
   impersonate IT staff to trick companies' employees into revealing their
   passwords over the phone, and today it's deeper still after a recent bout
   of flu. \"These megaleaks . . . they're an important phenomenon. And
   they're only going to increase.\"

    

   He'll see to that. By the time you're reading this another giant dump of
   classified U.S. documents may well be public. Assange refused to discuss
   the leak at the time FORBES went to press, but he claims it is part of a
   series that will have the greatest impact of any WikiLeaks release yet.
   Assange calls the shots: choosing the media outlets that splash his
   exposes, holding them to a strict embargo, running the leaks
   simultaneously on his site. Past megaleaks from his information insurgency
   over the last year have included 76,000 secret Afghan war documents and
   another trove of 392,000 files from the Iraq war. Those data explosions,
   the largest classified military security breaches in history, have roused
   antiwar activists and enraged the Pentagon.

    

   Admire Assange or revile him, he is the prophet of a coming age of
   involuntary transparency. Having exposed military misconduct on a grand
   scale, he is now gunning for corporate America. Does Assange have
   unpublished, damaging documents on pharmaceutical companies? Yes, he says.
   Finance? Yes, many more than the single bank scandal we've been
   discussing. Energy? Plenty, on everything from BP to an Albanian oil firm
   that he says attempted to sabotage its competitors' wells. Like
   informational IEDs, these damaging revelations can be detonated at will.

    

   Long gone are the days when Daniel Ellsberg had to photocopy thousands of
   Vietnam War documents to leak the Pentagon Papers. Modern whistleblowers,
   or employees with a grudge, can zip up their troves of incriminating
   documents on a laptop, USB stick or portable hard drive, spirit them out
   through personal e-mail accounts or online drop sites-or simply submit
   them directly to WikiLeaks.

    

   What do large companies think of the threat? If they're terrified, they're
   not saying. None would talk to us. Nor would the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
   WikiLeaks \"is high profile, legally insulated and transnational,\" says
   former Commerce Department official James Lewis, who follows cybersecurity
   for the Center for Strategic & International Studies. \"That adds up to a
   reputational risk that companies didn't have to think about a year ago.\"

    

   Already U.S. laws wrapped into financial reform this year expand
   whistleblower incentives to offer six- and seven-digit rewards to staffers
   in any industry who report malfeasance. WikiLeaks adds another, new form
   of corporate data breach: It offers the conscience-stricken and vindictive
   alike a chance to publish documents largely unfiltered, without censors or
   personal repercussions, thanks to privacy and encryption technologies that
   make anonymity easier than ever before. WikiLeaks' technical and
   ideological example has inspired copycats from Africa to China and rallied
   transparency advocates to push for a new, legal promised land in the
   unlikely haven of Iceland. It's also fueling a race in the cybersecurity
   industry and in Washington to find technology that can plug information
   leaks once for all.

    

   Today Assange looks tired, his eyes narrowed and the skin beneath them
   puffy, as if he's unused to even England's gloomy daylight. He has no
   permanent home. \"We're like a traveling production company; everyone moves
   somewhere, and we put on a production,\" he sighs. \"We haven't had any rest
   since April.\" In Sweden, where many of the group's servers are based, a
   warrant has now been issued for his arrest on rape charges. He's denied
   the accusations, arguing they amount to smear tactics. He's also afraid to
   set foot in several other countries, including the U.S., fearing that
   officials will find reasons to detain him. No question that WikiLeaks
   would be in trouble if he were jailed: A spokeswoman says it has a
   \"contingency plan,\" but without Assange there is no public face.
   Meanwhile, his resources have been drained by defections from his
   organization; some old friends and associates have taken issue with his
   autocratic style.

    

   None of which has stopped him from picking new fights. The promised
   release of bank documents would be the largest assault by WikiLeaks on the
   corporate sector, and Assange says the business community should expect
   plenty of sequels. In early October the site shut down its
   document-submission system; Assange says it was receiving more information
   than it could find resources to publish, thousands of additions a day at
   some points. The total is more gigabytes of data than he can count. \"Our
   pipeline of leaks has been increasing exponentially as our profile rises,\"
   he says, drawing a curve upward in the air with one hand.

    

   If even a fraction of his claims are borne out, he's already sitting on a
   crypt of data any three-letter spy agency would kill for. The world's most
   vocal transparency advocate is now one of the world's biggest keepers of
   secrets. And about half of those revelations, says Assange, relate to the
   private sector.

    

   Over the last four years he has been so busy embarrassing various
   governments, from Washington to the corrupt Kenyan regime of Daniel arap
   Moi, that many forget the corporate scandals already on WikiLeaks' trophy
   wall. In January 2008 the site posted documents alleging that the Swiss
   bank Julius Baer hid clients' profits from even the Swiss government,
   concealing them in what seemed to be shell companies in the Cayman
   Islands. The bank filed a lawsuit against WikiLeaks for publishing data
   stolen from its clients. Baer later dropped the suit-but managed to stir
   up embarrassing publicity for itself. The next year WikiLeaks published
   documents from a pharma trade group implying that its lobbyists were
   receiving confidential documents from and exerting influence over a World
   Health Organization project to fund drug research in the developing world.
   The resulting attention helped crater the WHO project.

    

   In September 2009 commodities giant Trafigura filed an injunction that
   prevented British media from mentioning a damaging internal report. The
   memo showed the company had dumped tons of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast,
   chemicals that allegedly sickened 100,000 locals. But it couldn't stop
   WikiLeaks from publishing the information. Trafigura eventually paid more
   than $200 million in settlements.

    

   How can an American corporation respond to a Wiki attack? Lawsuits won't
   work: WikiLeaks is legally shielded in the U.S. by its role as a mere
   conduit for documents. Even if a company somehow won a judgment against
   WikiLeaks, that wouldn't shut it down. Assange spreads the site's assets
   over many countries. \"There's no single target to drop a bomb on,\" says
   Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University.

    

   The best protection? With a dash of irony Icelandic WikiLeaks staffer
   Kristinn Hrafnsson suggests that companies change their ways to avoid
   targeting. \"They should resist the temptation to enter into corruption,\"
   he says. Don Tapscott, coauthor of The Naked Corporation (Free Press,
   2003), agrees. His simplistic conclusion: \"Open your own kimono. You're
   going to be naked. So you have to dig deep, look at your whole operation,
   make sure that integrity is part of your bones.\"

    

   Most corporations, instead, are turning to cybersecurity to shield their
   private parts. Despite dozens of calls to companies in tech, energy and
   finance, none wanted to talk about antileaking strategies. But a Forrester
   Research study found that about a quarter of companies in the U.S., the
   U.K., France, Germany and Canada were implementing leak-focused security
   software in 2010, and another third are considering that option. A study
   last year by the Ponemon Institute, a privacy-research consultancy in
   Traverse City, Mich., found that 60% of employees admit to taking
   sensitive data before they leave a company.

    

   *****

    

   Some of the more intriguing antileak work is being done by Uncle Sam. In
   an unmarked government building on the edge of a residential Arlington,
   Va. neighborhood, a cybersecurity researcher named Peiter Zatko shows just
   how easily leaks can occur. He lays out a blow-by-blow history of one
   insider data theft: The suspect searched broadly over the network to find
   anything related to critical infrastructure, then returned to manually
   probe a few interesting files. \"Then he walked away with enough
   information to shut down big chunks of the telephone systems in the United
   States,\" Zatko says matter-of-factly.

    

   Who was that shadowy data smuggler? \"That was me,\" says the 39-year-old
   researcher, giggling bashfully.

    

   Zatko is not your typical Department of Defense employee. Even in his new
   Beltway digs, he prefers to be called \"Mudge,\" the hacker handle he used
   during decades of exploring the dark corners of the Internet. Frank Heidt,
   a former security staffer at MCI and several military contractors, says
   that when he first read Zatko's exploit research in mid-1990s hacker
   zines, he thought that Mudge must be the pseudonym of a group. \"He was so
   prolific that I thought he couldn't be one person,\" Heidt says. In 1998,
   as part of the L0pht hacker think tank, Zatko testified in a congressional
   hearing that he and his friends could shut down the Internet in 30
   minutes.

    

   Since March Zatko has also been a lead cybersecurity researcher at the
   Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the mad-scientist wing of the
   Pentagon devoted to projects that occasionally result in breakthroughs
   like the Internet and GPS. Zatko's new pet project may be equally
   ambitious: He aims to rid the world of digital leaks.

    

   The telephone system theft case that Zatko dissected in a Darpa conference
   room was a test, demonstrating that anyone with access to a network could
   steal data without detection, despite the system's expensive security
   software. Now his challenge is to fix the problem. Since August he has led
   a project known as the Cyber Insider Threat, or Cinder. Like most Darpa
   initiatives it's an X-Prize-style open invitation for ideas; recipients
   typically get tens of millions of dollars in government funding.
   Thirty-five entrants, mostly tiny companies, have already publicly signed
   up, many more in secret. \"We're looking to everyone from academia to
   startups to large government contractors,\" says Zatko. \"We're not looking
   for evolutionary improvement. We want to pull the rug out from the problem
   altogether.\"

    

   It's a well-worn carpet. Since late 2007 every major security software
   vendor, from McAfee to Symantec to Trend Micro, has spent hundreds of
   millions of dollars to acquire companies in the so-called Data-Leak
   Prevention (DLP) industry-software designed to locate and tag sensitive
   information, and then guard against its escape at the edges of a firm's
   network.

    

   The problem: DLP doesn't work. Data is simply created too quickly, and
   moved around too often, for a mere filter to catch it, says Richard
   Stiennon, an analyst for security consultancy IT-Harvest, in Birmingham,
   Mich. \"For DLP to function, all the stars have to align,\" he says. \"This
   is a huge problem that can't be stopped with a single layer of
   infrastructure.\"

    

   More fashionable now is network forensics: the process of constantly
   collecting every fingerprint on a company's servers to trace an intruder
   or leaker after the fact-and, perhaps, deter the next one. That's a bit
   like fighting the next war according to the last one. Still, revenue at
   NetWitness, a prominent Herndon, Va. startup in that budding field, has
   leaped from $250,000 to $40 million since 2006. While the software
   generally gathers data and makes it easily available to queries, it
   doesn't pinpoint culprits. \"There's nothing in current technology that can
   do this in an automated fashion,\" says Shawn Carpenter, principal
   forensics analyst at NetWitness. \"You need a Columbo.\"

    

   Or, better yet, a robo-Columbo. Darpa's Zatko has been working on a system
   of automatically identifying what he calls \"malicious missions\": insider
   activity aimed at stealing data from inside a company's firewall, whether
   it's a Dell PC remotely hijacked by a Chinese cyberspy or Bradley
   Mannings, the U.S. soldier accused of leaking classified documents about
   combat in Afghanistan to WikiLeaks. Zatko's system would monitor networks
   in real-time for just the sort of data-stealing behavior he would perform
   himself: steps like scouring large areas of the network for a certain
   file, dumping piles of data to external storage hardware or sending
   encrypted files out over the Internet. No single episode would signal a
   leak; instead, the software would link acts in a probabilistic chain,
   triggering an alert only if a string of events points to purposeful data
   theft.

    

   Some of that leaky behavior isn't what a casual observer might expect.
   Consider the cyber footprints left by Robert Hanssen, a former FBI agent
   serving a life sentence in a Colorado supermax prison for selling
   intelligence to the Soviets over two decades. Every few days Hanssen would
   stop his normal activities and make a single query to a server across the
   network, a pattern he repeated for years. That server, Zatko says, held
   the counterintelligence database. Hanssen was searching for himself, a
   routine check to see if he'd finally been found out.

    

   \"You put all these things together into the different components of the
   mission,\" says Zatko. \"I'm looking for these new rhythms, new tells, new
   interrelations and requirements.\"

    

   Cinder wasn't created to combat WikiLeaks-in fact, it predates WikiLeaks'
   biggest military scandals. But Zatko has nonetheless found himself
   squarely in opposition to Assange's mission-a strange face-off, given that
   the two men once traveled in the same hacker circles, during the years
   when Assange went by the hacker handle Mendax (a Latin reference to the
   \"splendidly deceptive\" in the poet Horace's Odes) and reveled in accessing
   corporate and government systems without authorization. Neither will
   reveal much about their past encounters, but Assange says that they \"were
   in the same milieu.\" Asked about Assange, Zatko says only, \"I have very
   pleasant memories of those old days.\"

    

   WikiLeaks' founder, in fact, seems to have trouble accepting that Mudge is
   working for the other side. \"He's a clever guy, and he's also highly
   ethical,\" says Assange. \"I suspect he would have concerns about creating a
   system to conceal genuine abuses.\" He dismisses Cinder as just another
   system of digital censorship. And those systems, he says, will always
   fail, just as China's Great Firewall can't stop well-informed and
   determined dissident Internet users. \"Censorship might work for the
   average person but not for highly motivated people,\" Assange says. \"And
   our people are highly motivated.\"

    

   *****

    

   Shutting down WikiLeaks wouldn't stop the growing movement of transparency
   agitators. They now have a nation-size ally: Iceland. Since WikiLeaks
   scored a major scoop unearthing the corrupt loans that helped destroy that
   country's largest bank, the volcanic island is fast on its way to becoming
   the conduit for a global flood of leaks.

    

   It began when Kaupthing Bank collapsed in October 2008-a calamitous chain
   reaction that has strapped Iceland with $128 billion in debts, around
   $400,000 per capita. Ten months later Bogi Agustsson, a Walter
   Cronkite-ish anchor for Icelandic national broadcaster RUV, appeared on
   the evening news and explained that a legal injunction had prevented the
   station from airing a prepared expose on Kaupthing. Viewers who wanted to
   see the material, he suggested, should visit a site called Wikileaks.org.

    

   Those who took Agustsson's advice found a summary of Kaupthing's loan book
   posted on the site, detailing more than $6 billion funneled from
   Kaupthing's coffers to its own proprietors and companies they owned, often
   with little or no collateral; $900 million went to Olafur Olafsson, a
   major investor in Kaupthing who, on his birthday, flew in Elton John from
   England, along with a grand piano, for a one-hour concert. \"The banks had
   been eaten from the inside out,\" says Kristinn Hrafnsson, a former
   investigative reporter in Reykjavik who now works with WikiLeaks.

    

   A government investigation is still going on; no criminal charges have
   been filed. But WikiLeaks became a household name in Iceland. In December
   2009 Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a German who then worked with
   WikiLeaks, were invited to keynote a free-speech conference in Reykjavik.
   Their talk echoed an idea from American cyberlibertarian John Perry
   Barlow, calling for a \"Switzerland of bits.\" Iceland, with its independent
   spirit and recent taste of explosive whistle-blowing, they suggested,
   could become the digital doppelga:nger of a tax haven: a safe harbor for
   transparency, where it's open season on government and business
   secrets-and leakers are protected by law.

    

   The idea might have gone nowhere if not for Birgitta Jonsdottir. Assange's
   message captivated the 43-year-old poet and self-styled
   \"realist-anarchist.\" She wasn't just another idealistic protester with a
   goth wardrobe and hipster haircut. In the chaotic political environment
   that followed the national financial crisis, Jonsdottir had been elected
   to Iceland's parliament, the Althingi, in April 2009.

    

   Working with the country's transparency activists, she pulled together the
   Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, or Immi. The initiative would bring to
   Iceland all the source-protection, freedom of information and transparency
   laws from around the world and even set up a Nobel-style international
   award for work in the field of free expression. Jonsdottir pushed through
   a unanimous resolution to create a series of bills to implement Immi. They
   would also make Iceland the most friendly legal base for whistleblowers on
   Earth.

    

   Velkomin, as Icelanders would say, to Leakistan.

    

   \"The more that companies resist, the more information will get out about
   them,\" says Jonsdottir when we meet in Reykjavik's Hressingarskalinn cafe,
   around the corner from the parliament building. \"They can't hide anymore.
   The war is over. They lost.\" In Jonsdottir's vision Iceland will attract
   both mainstream media and WikiLeaks-like organizations to move their data
   to Iceland, enjoying legal protection, just as another firm might
   incorporate in a tax-sheltering island in the Caribbean.

    

   She may be getting a bit ahead of herself. Immi has yet to become law,
   though it has backing from powerful figures, including both Iceland's
   minister of justice and the head of its progressive party. Even if it
   does, Immi likely wouldn't offer much legal protection to organizations
   whose assets and staff aren't physically in the country; they could still
   be sued anywhere else in the world, given that their digital and print
   publications could appear globally. Immi could also face resistance from
   the U.S. and the EU-particularly when it comes to military matters. As
   Marc Thiessen, a conservative pundit, wrote on the blog of the American
   Enterprise Institute in August, \"Immi calls into question Iceland's
   seriousness as a NATO ally, and Iceland needs to realize there will be
   consequences for its actions.\" There could be a backlash for exposing
   corporate secrets, too. Alastair Mullis, a professor of law at East Anglia
   University in Britain, says, \"It's possible that Iceland will become the
   defamation capital of the world.\"

    

   Jonsdottir and fellow Immi creator Smari McCarthy are pushing ahead
   anyway. Immi, they say, doesn't fashion new laws; it cherry-picks existing
   statutes from around the world (source shields from Sweden, libel
   protection from New York State, protected communications with journalists
   from Belgium, among them). \"We're basing our legislation on laws that have
   already withstood attacks,\" says Jonsdottir. Defamation and other concerns
   like child pornography and copyright violations, she argues, would still
   be illegal in Iceland and wouldn't be sheltered.

    

   Nor is the idea to protect WikiLeaks itself, Jonsdottir points out. The
   site doesn't need help: Its data and submissions process are carefully
   encrypted, and its infrastructure is spread over enough
   countries-including some servers in a bombproof, underground bunker in
   Sweden-that taking it offline is already nearly impossible.

   Instead Immi would foster a new wave of media organizations and
   whistleblower outlets that don't rely on WikiLeaks' technical savvy or
   resources. Already a handful of smaller, leak-focused conduits-regional
   sites like Africa-focused SaharaReporters or Thaileaks.info-have published
   damning data. Immi's McCarthy says he's been approached by media
   organizations from Rwanda to Chechnya. German WikiLeaks staffer Daniel
   Domscheit-Berg, disgruntled with Assange's laser focus on infrequent
   megaleaks, has left the organization along with several others to create
   his own spinoff. \"In the end there must be a thousand WikiLeaks,\" he told
   Der Spiegel in September.

    

   Iceland certainly has the infrastructure for a lot of informational
   mischief. Half an hour outside Reykjavik, on a landscape that resembles
   Mars covered in snow, the Thor Data Center is preparing for an influx of
   bytes. By 2011 it hopes to have thousands of servers in its
   aluminum-plant-turned-server-farm, powered by ultracheap geothermal energy
   and cooled by free arctic air. Iceland's biggest Web host, ironically
   named 1984 Web Hosting, is excited about the boost Immi could give its
   business. \"I created this company to prevent thought control,\" says Mordur
   Ingolfsson, its chief executive. \"In my humble opinion, Immi is the most
   important thing to happen to this godforsaken island since the Sagas were
   written.\" (That's 600-plus years.)

    

   Jonsdottir agrees: \"WikiLeaks was an important icebreaker. It was the tip.
   Immi is the rest of the wedge, and it will open up everything.\" (She is
   less thrilled to learn that Assange speaks of Immi as his personal
   creation.)I ask Assange how he expects companies to cope with a world
   where hundreds of WikiLeak-alikes may soon exist. His three-part
   prescription is earnest-if a bit patronizing: \"Do things to encourage
   leaks from dishonest competitors. Be as open and honest as possible. Treat
   your employees well.\"

   He also wants to clear up a misunderstanding. Despite his revolutionary
   reputation, he's not antibusiness. He bristles at the media's focus on his
   teenage years as a computer hacker who broke into dozens of systems, from
   the Department of Defense to Nortel, and was eventually convicted on 25
   charges of computer fraud and fined thousands of dollars.

    

   Instead, he prefers to think of himself as an entrepreneur. He tells the
   story of a free-speech-focused Internet service provider he cofounded in
   1993, known as Suburbia. It was, to hear him tell it, the blueprint for
   WikiLeaks-in one instance, when the Church of Scientology demanded to know
   who had posted antichurch information on one site, he refused to help.
   (\"He has titanium balls,\" says David Gerard, that site's creator.) \"I saw
   it early on, without realizing it: potentiating people to reveal their
   information, creating a conduit,\" Assange says. \"Without having any other
   robust publisher in the market, people came to us.\"

    

   Leaks merely lubricate the free market, he says, settling into the couch
   and clearly enjoying giving me a lecture on economics. (Later, as a
   45-minute interview pushes into two hours, he ignores his handler, who
   keeps urging him to leave for his next appointment.) He cites the example
   of the Chinese Sanlu Group, whose milk powder contained toxic melamine in
   2008. While poisoning its customers, Sanlu also gained an advantage over
   competitors and might have forced more of them to taint their products,
   too, or go bankrupt-if Sanlu hadn't been exposed in the Chinese press. \"In
   the struggle between open and honest companies and dishonest and closed
   companies, we're creating a tremendous reputational tax on the unethical
   companies,\" he says.

    

   Of course, Assange's tax isn't as equitable as it sounds. He alone decides
   where to apply the penalty, choosing the targets and when to expose them
   with a touch of theatrical grandstanding-and with zero accountability. For
   better-and worse-WikiLeaks has become the Julian Assange Show. As a
   photographer begins shooting, Assange wonders aloud if the coat he's
   wearing might have been produced by a labor-exploiting company. A few
   minutes later he jokes about his \"messiah complex.\"

    

   Like any true believer, Assange sees his work in simple terms. Markets, he
   reminds me, can't exist without information. Business will come to
   appreciate what he offers. And if that requires a few painful scandals in
   the process?

    

   Assange doesn't miss a beat. \"Pain for the guilty.

    

   From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
   On Behalf Of Marko Papic
   Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 19:39
   To: analysts
   Subject: Random Business Idea - Network Security

    

   I'm sure this has been thought of before at STRATFOR so excuse the
   redundancy. I was reading a solid Forbes article on Assange and it said
   that a large number of deep pocket corporations were looking into
   leak-focused network security after these Wikileak episodes.

   I was wondering if it was possible for us to get some of that
   \"leak-focused\" gravy train. This is an obvious fear sale, so that's a good
   thing. And we have something to offer that the IT security companies
   don't, mainly our focus on counter-intelligence and surveillance that Fred
   and Stick know better than anyone on the planet.

   We do a lot of good work with all the personal/executive security analysis
   as well. Could we develop some ideas and procedures on the idea of
   \"leak-focused\" network security that focuses on preventing one's own
   employees from leaking sensitive information.

   The point here is that I am sure there are certain procedures and
   precautions that companies should employ that go beyond installing network
   security network to deal with potential leaks. In fact, Im not so sure
   this is an IT problem that requires an IT solution.

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-09 07:11:02",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/870971_re-random-business-idea-network-security-.html","kevin.stech@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
872882,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   if anonymous outs taxi cab drivers working with Zeta, they are dead.  that
   is both simple and devastating.  If they release email accounts of GOM
   folks, and there are cartel members in that address book that would be
   devastating.  I think our definitions of devastating are different.  I
   agree the ability of these folks to bring down governments is minimal, but
   I am willing to bet the next deep throat scenario will come via a hacker
   and information they are able to steal. 

   On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already

     2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  The question is if the attack is high
     priority enough.  Many people assume there is no attribution because
     there is no response, but I don't think that is accurate. 
     has NSA told you otherwise?  i am unclear, are you saying the entire
     darknet is mapped, or could be mapped, only it isn't because the NSA
     doesn't care or doens't share? 
     3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new laptop and
     start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack involves much more than
     a recently bought laptop.  In the same way there is an attack cycle for
     a terrorist attack or crime, there is one for a cyber attack.  A very
     simple attack may be as hard to trace as a nearly-random mugging in the
     dark in a neighborhood with much more serious crime and no CCTV cameras.
     so simple=low damage, and complicated = more damage?  if you hacked
     Calderon's blackberry and found out who his contacts were, and one of
     them was Chapo's sister, it would be simple and devastating.  A more
     complicated attack, however, involves pre-operational surveillance,
     developing exploits, developing programs and code, gaining access,
     exploiting that, and carrying out an attack.  And that takes time,
     giving more time for your exposure. Look at everything that went into
     Stuxnet as a great example, that couldn't be done with one person with a
     new laptop.  All of this activity provides activity and evidence which
     helps for attribution.  Of course it is always possible to develop an
     attack, just like any other operation, that even the best law
     enforcement and national intelligence agencies have trouble or cannot
     attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that it's very difficult for
     someone to successfully use Anonymous as a cover and have NSA, GHQ, MID,
     Aman, etc, be unable to attribute it.  They may not choose to cover it
     if it is small scale crime, however. 
     On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored cyber
       warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing that, since
       you can conduct a cyber attack without associating with a hacker group
       and still deny / cover actions on behalf of the State. An individual
       attacking US computer assets from China, may be working by himself or
       on behalf of the Chinese government, but unless the US has other intel
       on the Chinese government's cyber warfare activities in order to
       corroborate there is little capability to distinguish.

       It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
       operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets from
       SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual responsible for
       hacking State run servers. In the past, I have turned to SIGINT
       organizations for collections on computer related material, but this
       was due to the US being behind in cyber warfare, and not knowing where
       to assign responsibility. However, this has changed dramatically in
       the last couple of years.

       Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As an
       extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go to a
       Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the online
       activity to something revealing (accessing personal email accounts,
       tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop, etc..), and
       begin hacking government email accounts then never use the laptop
       again. Unless LEA could get an accurate description of my appearance
       from Starbuck's patrons or possible security cameras, I can not think
       of way to identify me.

       Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to these
       enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied to specific
       computer-related activities because of the difficulty in identifying
       individuals.

       I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown, would
       be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a common
       participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a State?
       Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that State agent
       organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter buddies, what signs
       could a LEA look for to distinguish?

       On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a bit)

         1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything actually
         harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't, but i'm very
         doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first real case where
         they could do some minor damage--to individual people, not not to an
         organization or anything that would come as a serious or strategic
         threat. 

         2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is actually
         pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as a cover, but
         that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could probably still be
         attributed if important enough to those agencies.  The recent attack
         on Sony actually brings this issue up- Whoever is calling themselves
         anonymous denies they did it.  And keep in mind how much they have
         claimed an publicized attacks in the past, even before they were
         carried out.  The attack on the Playstation Network was more
         sophisticated than anonymous' usual work (though potentially
         coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that distracted Sony's IT
         security).  But whoever did it, again, no real damage came of it. 
         Congress is holding hearings over data security, but this is no
         different than the OC groups stealing your credit card information. 
         LE will go after them, have some success, but the threat is not that
         large. 
         On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

           Link: themeData

           I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to have a
           broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no nothing, or
           almost nothing about what this group is and the threat it poses.
           Reviewing their list of attacks
           (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most of
           the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood of the
           internet . The interesting thing when it comes to their
           interactions with the cartels is the dubious role they play: at
           the same time they can be fighting crime by revealing cartel
           members/supporters, but they can also put lives in risk.

           However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
           Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can
           conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
           (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

           If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
           websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to know
           more about these guys. Who they are? What are they interested in?
           How they operate? Who they have targeted so far? How can I defend
           myself from them? In what countries are they active? Should I
           worry about them at all? Can I use them to achieve any particular
           goal?

           On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

             nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else
             can build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they
             pose to innocent people caught up in the terror that is Mexico. 
             By focusing on journalists or taxi drivers they show little
             understanding of the situation.  This has long term implications
             in not just Mexico.  They don't consider the consequences of
             their actions and they act without understanding the
             environment.  It was the same when they released information on
             the Sony Playstation network to protest Sony.  They hurt
             innocent people to prove a point. 

             On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

               Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
               possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
               Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by
               Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on cartels
               as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
               find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the
               individual being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites
               (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it
               may be an individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the
               Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

               Link: themeData
               Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
               distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government
               websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
               statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a
               video depicting a masked individual addressing Mexican drug
               cartels on October 10? With the most recent video release,
               Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels in
               Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers,
               police, politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal
               cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow
               kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. In the
               Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
               day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands
               of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The potential of
               conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
               presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels
               lashing out at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any
               reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers
               before. 

               What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                    o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
               threat to Mexican cartels.
                    o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit
               online media
                    o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to
               lash out at cartels

               While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose
               a threat
                    o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
               identifiable information on cartel members
                    o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could
               acquire on cartels
                    o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
               communications, identifiable information on cartels members
               have to be considered in the realm of possibilities for
                           Anonymous
                           o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to
               reveal illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

               Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
               ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
               result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
               limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting in
               front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
               retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online
               assault of cartels.
                    o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
               journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some
               of these individuals are forced to collude with cartels.    
                         Taxi drivers are often victims of extortion or
               coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the identity of these
               individuals will not have a significant impact on cartel    
                             operations. Politicans have been accused of
               working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before,
               however there has yet to be any consequences from this.
                    o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent
               cartels are willing to go protect their operations.
                       o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                       o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
               community before, coercing computer science majors into
               working for them.
                       o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
               discovering hackers within Mexico.

                

               On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                 Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea
                 but there are several issues to address and fix here.

                 These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
                 discussion:

                      o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's
                 fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                      o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                 difference between stealing bank records from government
                 computers and overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                      o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
                 information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of
                 info is kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You
                 seem to be talking about identities, whose? If anything it's
                 dirty cops, politicians and businessmen who need to worry
                 about what anon is going to be saying. Think about why the
                 bloggers and media were killed in previous instances. Was it
                 because they revealed operational details, because they
                 acted as informants, because they exposed links with
                 officials or because they somehow sullied the cartel's
                 reputation? In short, what kind of information is damaging
                 to the cartels themselves?
                      o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon
                 can realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes
                 a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence
                 capacity except for the technical ability by a very small
                 number of its members to infiltrate certain networks and
                 databases and steal information. Now what kind of
                 information would a cartel keep on a network that is
                 connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else
                 could information be found? Government databases? Once we
                 know what kind of information is accessible, we can also
                 know more about the consequences of dissemination.
                      o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to
                 trace back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of
                 killings done by people who may not understand the
                 difference between an anon hacker and a blogger.

                 On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                   wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                   -------- Original Message --------

                    Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                       Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                       From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                   Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                         To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                   you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to
                   need a lot more work

                   You need to lay out:

                   a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger
                   section is unclear
                   b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is,
                   and therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
                   c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
                   anything
                   d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill
                   anyone who breaches their systems or exposes their
                   connections

                   I also just want to point out that we have reasonable
                   reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some
                   significant levels of sophistication in their online
                   presence, to include the use of cyber currencies and
                   significant IT capacity. There is no reason to assume that
                   Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
                   protected fashion.

                   Karen Hooper
                   Latin America Analyst
                   o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                   c: 512.750.7234
                   STRATFOR
                   www.stratfor.com
                   On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                   On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                   Link: themeData

                   Trigger

                   Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
                   Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?,
                   lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
                   statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including
                   a video released depicting...? a person talking? a voice?
                   words on a screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent
                   video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                   criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of
                   Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
                   journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker
                   group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member
                   otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
                   between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
                   unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly
                   different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a
                   conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have little
                   experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no
                   experience with the cartels. I do not believe for a second
                   that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                    

                   In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                   mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                   reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped member
                   this should be mentioned right up front. Cartels have a
                   member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back. Provide
                   enough details so we understand who this guy is and
                   why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims
                   of possessing revealing information on cartel members and
                   operations are true, cartels will likely respond with
                   violence against individuals revealed as opposing cartel
                   members huh? you mean Anonymous members?. It also is
                   likely that public disclosure of GOM officials who collude
                   with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving the
                   Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this
                   means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
                   effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against
                   Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will
                   continue their threats against any individual using online
                   media WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking
                   about bloggers here. against the cartels.

                    

                   The Battle Space

                   Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two
                   separate realities from each other. Anonymous operates
                   solely in sphere of the computer networks. Anonymous does
                   not experience geographical boundaries. All personalities
                   within Anonymous, exist solely in cyber space.  (That is
                   not entirely true. They are physical people tho live in
                   the real world. They have names and addresses - although
                   most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power
                   base consists of their technical capabilities in hacking.
                   Any information connected to the Internet is vulnerable to
                   exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's of individual
                   cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population could
                   be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
                   has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or
                   a big company with a website that brings in revenue, but
                   it does not really matter if you don't run operations on
                   the web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They
                   are also far less dependent on the web than the
                   jihadists.)

                   Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's
                   power base consists of the perceived anonymity that its
                   members believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by
                   operating through the internet. This gives an opening for
                   people disgruntled by anything and everything to practice
                   general dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity +
                   audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web of
                   people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any
                   sort of serious IT capability. 

                   The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has
                   been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

                   The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in
                   US and Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always
                   looking to maximize profits and expand. But they are
                   bricks and mortar commerce. Yes..... but they use the
                   internet to launder money and issue commands. We know that
                   Sinaloa does that from insight. There is no reason to
                   assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity. 
                   Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue and
                   escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
                   experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels
                   are always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel
                   violence. While battling each other, cartels still face
                   arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to
                   avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money,
                   cartels have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists
                   and online bloggers in order to cover details of their
                   operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for this
                   discussion. You need to focus on the possible
                   vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
                   have no cyber presence.

                    

                   Anonymous' Weapons

                   Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions
                   against criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous'
                   only ability to combat cartels lay in information
                   operations, mainly disseminating sensitive information on
                   cartels and propagating anti-cartel statements via social
                   media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean so far and
                   that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
                   cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance of
                   a targeted information operations campaign by technically
                   elite individuals can not be overlooked should not be
                   underestimated. Cartels view main stream media outlets and
                   social media blogs as such a threat to their operations,
                   that they have continued to target journalists and
                   bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was
                   placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the
                   body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
                   denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive
                   here, and it's not really addressing the subheading

                   As stated earlier, any information connected to the
                   internet risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample
                   reason to suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing
                   information they threaten to release. By releasing
                   identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
                   cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
                   individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
                   information is limited by what is available via the
                   Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
                   should always be considered a possibility of an attack.
                   However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the US
                   governments computer networks, information available to
                   Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy to
                   acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This isn't
                   clear at all

                    

                   Cartel's Defense

                               A counter response to the video? by the
                   cartels has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous'
                   claims of a kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los
                   Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by hackers
                   so... how has there not been a counter response? also this
                   undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is
                   soley internet based, and underlines the vulnerabilities
                   of associated members. How did they find teh Anonymous
                   member? The answer to that could very well give you some
                   indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
                   Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web
                   , the cartels will face a number of challenges which
                   rarely are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG
                   has whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in
                   cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good intel
                   indicating that) they are working on disrupting the
                   cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in any
                   region of the world. Personal information including
                   locations is only available if a hacker chooses to divulge
                   it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
                   figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous.
                   Cartels are only capable of dealing with their online
                   enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
                   employing hackers of their own under their payroll?
                   Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                               Cartels have been known to coerce the services
                   of Mexican citizens with a technical background.
                   Recruiting the help of computer science majors through
                   personal threats has been reported in the past where? What
                   cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels operate in the
                   world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they will
                   likely need the assistance of technical experts to help
                   combat any threat by computer hackers.  While identifying
                   bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is
                   unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
                   operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies
                   such as the FBi, with far more technical experience and
                   resources than cartels, struggle to find hackers through
                   investigations. A) How do you know they are not in Mexico?
                   (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume
                   that not all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                               In order to compete with an online foe,
                   cartels will likely continue counter tactics they are most
                   familiar with, brute force. Cartels are still capable of
                   their HUMINT operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would
                   we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged
                   connections to hacker communities will likely be targeted
                   and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and
                   public display of violence will likely continue to be used
                   to scare online media into submission i'm not really
                   seeing the online media-international hacking group
                   connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
                   inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
                   encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
                   cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will
                   remain to be seen until cartels are able to seek out and
                   capture members of the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could
                   call the collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off
                   any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

         --

         Sean Noonan

         Tactical Analyst

         Office: +1 512-279-9479

         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

         www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 22:29:35",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/872882_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
873251,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else can build
   off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they pose to innocent
   people caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing on journalists
   or taxi drivers they show little understanding of the situation.  This has
   long term implications in not just Mexico.  They don't consider the
   consequences of their actions and they act without understanding the
   environment.  It was the same when they released information on the Sony
   Playstation network to protest Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a
   point. 

   On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing possible
     cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat Anonymous can pose
     to cartels. The video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing
     personal information on cartels as well as states a member had been
     kidnapped. I could not find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of
     the individual being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites
     (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an
     individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the Operation
     Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

     Link: themeData
     Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
     denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed out at
     drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
     criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked individual
     addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the most recent
     video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels
     in Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers, police,
     politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The
     hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member
     otherwise face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming
     November 5th was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
     reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met.
     The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
     presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out at
     online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing
     with any headaches from hackers before. 

     What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
          o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat to
     Mexican cartels.
          o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online media
          o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out at
     cartels

     While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a threat
          o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess identifiable
     information on cartel members
          o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
     cartels
          o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
     identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in the
     realm of possibilities for
                 Anonymous
                 o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
     illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

     Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the ultra-violent
     world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result, their understanding of
     cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when
     sitting in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
     retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online assault of
     cartels.
          o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists will
     cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these individuals are
     forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are often
     victims of extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the
     identity of these individuals will not have a significant impact on
     cartel                   operations. Politicans have been accused of
     working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before, however
     there has yet to be any consequences from this.
          o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels are
     willing to go protect their operations.
             o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
             o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science community
     before, coercing computer science majors into working for them.
             o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
     discovering hackers within Mexico.

      

     On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

       Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but there
       are several issues to address and fix here.

       These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
       discussion:

            o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but we
       can't gloss over that fact
            o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference between
       stealing bank records from government computers and overloading
       www.loszetas.com main page.
            o     There's no thought out process of what sort of information
       could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is kept online and
       accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
       identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops, politicians and
       businessmen who need to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
       Think about why the bloggers and media were killed in previous
       instances. Was it because they revealed operational details, because
       they acted as informants, because they exposed links with officials or
       because they somehow sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what
       kind of information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
            o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
       realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure of
       damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for the
       technical ability by a very small number of its members to infiltrate
       certain networks and databases and steal information. Now what kind of
       information would a cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
       internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could information be found?
       Government databases? Once we know what kind of information is
       accessible, we can also know more about the consequences of
       dissemination.
            o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
       back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings done by
       people who may not understand the difference between an anon hacker
       and a blogger.

       On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

         wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

         -------- Original Message --------

          Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
             Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
             From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
         Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
               To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

         you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a lot
         more work

         You need to lay out:

         a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section is
         unclear
         b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
         therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
         c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
         d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone who
         breaches their systems or exposes their connections

         I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
         insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant levels
         of sophistication in their online presence, to include the use of
         cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no reason to
         assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
         protected fashion.

         Karen Hooper
         Latin America Analyst
         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
         c: 512.750.7234
         STRATFOR
         www.stratfor.com
         On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

         On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

         Link: themeData

         Trigger

         Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
         Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed out
         at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
         Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released depicting...?
         a person talking? a voice? words on a screen? exactly when?.  With
         the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
         the criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of
         Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
         journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker group
         demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
         consequences. The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal
         cartels and hackers, presents an unprecedented war front for the
         cartels. The vastly different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas
         leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have little
         experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no experience
         with the cartels. I do not believe for a second that the cartels
         have no experience with hackers.

          

         In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
         day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of
         releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up
         front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back.
         Provide enough details so we understand who this guy is and why/how
         he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing
         revealing information on cartel members and operations are true,
         cartels will likely respond with violence against individuals
         revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous
         members?. It also is likely that public disclosure of GOM officials
         who collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving the
         Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this means. You
         mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel
         will be able to retaliate against Anonymous remains unanswered .
         However, cartels will continue their threats against any individual
         using online media WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not
         talking about bloggers here. against the cartels.

          

         The Battle Space

         Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
         realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere of
         the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience geographical
         boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in
         cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They are physical people
         tho live in the real world. They have names and addresses - although
         most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power base
         consists of their technical capabilities in hacking. Any information
         connected to the Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers.
         (Identifying the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst of
         Mexico's population could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of
         what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
         Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in revenue,
         but it does not really matter if you don't run operations on the
         web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are also far
         less dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

         Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power base
         consists of the perceived anonymity that its members believe
         themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating through the
         internet. This gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
         and everything to practice general dickery. As the popular meme
         goes, anonymity + audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web
         of people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of
         serious IT capability. 

         The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been from
         targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

         The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
         Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
         maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
         commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money and
         issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight. There
         is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity.
         Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue and escalating
         brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing
         different types of threats. Cartels are always suffering at the
         hands of cartel on cartel violence. While battling each other,
         cartels still face arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels
         wish to avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
         have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
         bloggers in order to cover details of their operations. ok... but
         that's kind of a red herrng for this discussion. You need to focus
         on the possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume
         they have no cyber presence.

          

         Anonymous' Weapons

         Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
         criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
         combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly disseminating
         sensitive information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel
         statements via social media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean
         so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
         cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance of a
         targeted information operations campaign by technically elite
         individuals can not be overlooked should not be underestimated.
         Cartels view main stream media outlets and social media blogs as
         such a threat to their operations, that they have continued to
         target journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los
         Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the
         body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who denounce
         cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not
         really addressing the subheading

         As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet risks
         disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest Anonymous
         is capable of possessing information they threaten to release. By
         releasing identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
         cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those individuals.
         Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive information is limited
         by what is available via the Internet. Government computers
         connected to the Internet should always be considered a possibility
         of an attack. However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the
         US governments computer networks, information available to Mexico's
         intelligence collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you
         trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

          

         Cartel's Defense

                     A counter response to the video? by the cartels has yet
         to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped member by
         Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed
         by hackers so... how has there not been a counter response? also
         this undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is soley
         internet based, and underlines the vulnerabilities of associated
         members. How did they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that
         could very well give you some indication to the technical ability of
         the cartels . As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
         wide web , the cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely
         are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole
         agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume
         (and we have good intel indicating that) they are working on
         disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in
         any region of the world. Personal information including locations is
         only available if a hacker chooses to divulge it or if the subject
         of the attack is savvy enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only
         work for Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
         online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
         employing hackers of their own under their payroll? Stranger things
         have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                     Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
         Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the help of
         computer science majors through personal threats has been reported
         in the past where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels
         operate in the world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they
         will likely need the assistance of technical experts to help combat
         any threat by computer hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside
         of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable
         of identifying any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
         enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
         experience and resources than cartels, struggle to find hackers
         through investigations. A) How do you know they are not in Mexico?
         (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not
         all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                     In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
         likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with, brute
         force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT operations within
         Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals
         with alleged connections to hacker communities will likely be
         targeted and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and
         public display of violence will likely continue to be used to scare
         online media into submission i'm not really seeing the online
         media-international hacking group connection here.  The cruel
         manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer hackers
         have unlikely encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
         cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will remain to
         be seen until cartels are able to seek out and capture members of
         the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the collective bluff and
         simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 17:22:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/873251_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
874103,"Re: [latam] Falklands Monitoring/Repping Guidance
","   I believe they have had a sub rotation in the region since 82

   Nate Hughes wrote:

     We want to watch the Ocean Guardian rig and any Argentinian attempt to
     interfere or intimidate operations. Any Argentine naval or air activity
     in the vicinity of the Falklands right now should at the very least be
     noted, if not repped. Any UK reinforcements being deployed or arriving
     on station in the Falklands should be noted and repped unless they are
     simply rotational (one destroyer or detachment of fighters replacing
     another, for example.

     The heart of this is watching for actual developments and physical
     deployments. There will be no shortage of rhetoric flying out of Buenos
     Aires on this. But it is a keen awareness of what is actually happening
     that will help us sift through the rhetoric.

     UK assets on station:
     -the guided missile destroyer HMS York (D98)
     -the offshore patrol vessel HMS Clyde (P-284)
     -the Royal Fleet Auxiliary tanker Wave Ruler (A-390)
     -four Typhoon air superiority fighters

     You probably won't see it, but keep an eye out for any indication that
     there is a British sub on station.

     Probably want to dig and see if we can find a Falkland Islands paper.
     --
     Nathan Hughes
     Director of Military Analysis
     STRATFOR
     nathan.hughes@stratfor.com

 --
 Alex Posey
 Tactical Analyst
 STRATFOR
 alex.posey@stratfor.com
","2010-02-22 16:11:32",1,"2012-02-27 22:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/874103_re-latam-falklands-monitoring-repping-guidance-.html","alex.posey@stratfor.com","mailto:latam@stratfor.com","hughes@stratfor.com,latam@stratfor.com",""
874331,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   I disagree that Anonymous doesn't matter, but I agree the point of
   Tristan's piece is what makes this interesting.  innocent people could
   die, and that sucks.

   On 10/25/11 9:57 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     No, I didn't say that. 

     Sometimes we write about things--the most obvious and comparable example
     being Wikileaks-- that don't matter and explaining why they don't
     matter.  Another example being some of the grassroots terrorists who
     have been picked up in the US,  say Mohamad Osman Mohamad (sp?) for
     example.  He didn't matter, but we can provide a very good and cogent
     explanation of the threats he did and did not offer that few others do
     (or maybe no one else).

     But I don't think we have the expertise to truly deal with Anonymous and
     I don't care to give them more press for not doing much.  Tristan's
     piece on the other hand gets at a new and developing issue in what they
     are trying to do.  It's an anomaly i think that is worth covering.  It
     is probably the first time we will see violence as a result of their
     activities. 

     On 10/25/11 9:35 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

       So, until Anonymous doesn't become a national threat we shouldn't
       write about it?

       On 10/24/11 8:17 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         There's enough information on what's behind the Aurora attacks to
         respond and shut them down. 

         Change everything I said about SIGINT to CNO combined with
         all-source analysis and maybe human investigations.  Same point
         applies. With the low-level shit, it's usually not investigated.

         As far as I'm concerned an attack that matters is something
         seriously affects a country's capabilities relative to others.  (in
         this, intelligence can seriously affect those abilities, as it
         allows for them to be countered or become less advtantageous,
         relatively)
          

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: \"Tristan Reed\" <tristan.reed@stratfor.com>
         To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
         Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:33:59 PM
         Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels

         As far as Aurora, I haven't followed it closely. Did they ever
         identify the attackers or number of attackers? I thought the target
         set was the only thing that led people to believe the Chinese
         government was responsible.

         2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
         responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating
         cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case
         HUMINT is just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT
         capabilities does not indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers.
         NSA may have there own department for tracking hackers but it does
         not make it SIGINT.

         Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

         Wikipedia provides an indepth explanation on SIGINT . But in short,
         SIGINT is the capability in exploiting signals provided by
         communication devices, and what can be obtained by exploiting the
         signals. Combining computer network operations and SIGINT is
         innaccurate, because while SIGINT may be used with other
         intelligence disciplines in order to identify a hacker, it is not
         necessary and is no more related than any other intel discipline.
         SIGINT could help you identify a computer devices (not the operator)
         emitting a signal (wifi), and cryptanalysis, which is also separate
         from SIGINT but often used in conjunction, could help in providing
         methods to decrypt messages over a network, but SIGINT wouldn't
         obtain those messages.

         In order to exploit computer network operations, the operators
         involved are specifically trained in computer science disciplines
         and technologies tailored specifically for computer activity.

         NSA also is the primary agency for cryptanalysis. Because of
         technological demands of SIGINT and cryptanalysis, NSA has enormous
         resources in R&D, so I can see why the USG would move some CNO to
         NSA. But their SIGINT capabilities are not indicators of CNO
         capabilities.

         Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary
         labor for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are
         discussing operations on the scale of causing physical damage to
         extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of a cyber
         attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not mattered. 
         You chose the most prolific example of a cyber attack (which the
         whole operation consisted mainly outside of the cyber attack
         itself). Anything that falls short of this doesn't matter? Define
         what matters. None of anonymous' attacks have physically damaged
         secret Iranian nuclear facilities, but I think you are downplaying
         too much the significance of exposing corporate secrets, halting
         businesses' revenues, and embarrassing State actors by defacing
         their websites.

         On 10/24/11 5:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

           On 10/24/11 5:07 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

               1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already The USG
               arrested 10 Russian spies last year, are you willing to say
               foreign intel is not capable of conducting espionage
               undetected? No, of course not.  But I also would not argue
               that the SVR is so good to be immune to detection, as you are
               arguing with hackers.  I'm saying they are more detectable
               than you think.  There is no such thing as truly anonymous. 
               Everythign leaves a trail.  Will that trail in every instance
               lead to a single individual? no.  but it can lead to a place,
               an organization, and often, an individual. 

               2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
               responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to
               investigating cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to
               corroborate, in this case HUMINT is just as significant as
               SIGINT. A country's SIGINT capabilities does not indicate its
               capabilities in tracking hackers. NSA may have there own
               department for tracking hackers but it does not make it
               SIGINT.

               Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

               The question is if the attack is high priority enough.  Many
               people assume there is no attribution because there is no
               response, but I don't think that is accurate.  Many people say
               this, because no attribution is one reason for no response. 
               Yes, they do, and if they think that is the primary reason for
               lack of response, then I think they are wrong. 

               3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new
               laptop and start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack
               involves much more than a recently bought laptop.  In the same
               way there is an attack cycle for a terrorist attack or crime,
               there is one for a cyber attack.  A very simple attack may be
               as hard to trace as a nearly-random mugging in the dark in a
               neighborhood with much more serious crime and no CCTV
               cameras.  A more complicated attack, however, involves
               pre-operational surveillance, developing exploits, developing
               programs and code, gaining access, exploiting that, and
               carrying out an attack.  Discovering exploits and writing code
               can be done entirely offline, out of sight of law enforcement
               or intel agencies. Pre-operational surveillance and gaining
               access (the point of the exploit you write offline) would fit
               in my example. The point is, if you don't link your computer
               to identifiable information, you remain anonymous. Just like
               people use certain methods to build IEDs, people use certain
               mehtods to design programs and code for cyber attacks.  Over
               time, those methods become identifiable and more and more
               attributable. This is, for example, how AURORA is linked back
               to the Chinese.  and very specific Chinese, I may add. Being
               connected or unconnected doesn't matter, eventually you have
               to use what you develop, or copy from someone, and all of
               those things can be analyzed.   And that takes time, giving
               more time for your exposure Exposure comes from network
               activity with the target, a lot of the pre-operational phase
               of an attack can occur without network activity. Look at
               everything that went into Stuxnet as a great example, that
               couldn't be done with one person with a new laptop. Writing
               the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary labor
               for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are
               discussing operations on the scale of causing physical damage
               to extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of
               a cyber attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not
               mattered.   All of this activity provides activity and
               evidence which helps for attribution.  Of course it is always
               possible to develop an attack, just like any other operation,
               that even the best law enforcement and national intelligence
               agencies have trouble or cannot attribute.  That's fine.  My
               point is that it's very difficult for someone to successfully
               use Anonymous as a cover and have NSA, GHQ, MID, Aman, etc, be
               unable to attribute it.  How do you know if NSA or GHQ is
               effective in identifying hackers?I don't, but I'm confident
               they are far better than you are allowing for.    They may not
               choose to cover it if it is small scale crime, however. 
               On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                 I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state
                 sponsored cyber warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in
                 actually doing that, since you can conduct a cyber attack
                 without associating with a hacker group and still deny /
                 cover actions on behalf of the State. An individual
                 attacking US computer assets from China, may be working by
                 himself or on behalf of the Chinese government, but unless
                 the US has other intel on the Chinese government's cyber
                 warfare activities in order to corroborate there is little
                 capability to distinguish.

                 It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
                 operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT.
                 Assets from SIGINT would not directly help you track an
                 individual responsible for hacking State run servers. In the
                 past, I have turned to SIGINT organizations for collections
                 on computer related material, but this was due to the US
                 being behind in cyber warfare, and not knowing where to
                 assign responsibility. However, this has changed
                 dramatically in the last couple of years.

                 Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous.
                 As an extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in
                 cash, go to a Starbucks with free public wifi, and never
                 attribute the online activity to something revealing
                 (accessing personal email accounts, tweeting, entering
                 personal information to the laptop, etc..), and begin
                 hacking government email accounts then never use the laptop
                 again. Unless LEA could get an accurate description of my
                 appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible security
                 cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

                 Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer
                 to these enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities
                 tied to specific computer-related activities because of the
                 difficulty in identifying individuals.

                 I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be
                 blown, would be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But
                 what if a common participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was
                 working for a State? Anonymous has denounced state
                 governments before, if that State agent organizes an attack
                 amongst his IRC / Twitter buddies, what signs could a LEA
                 look for to distinguish?

                 On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

                   In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming
                   in a bit)

                   1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything
                   actually harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they
                   can't, but i'm very doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows
                   the first real case where they could do some minor
                   damage--to individual people, not not to an organization
                   or anything that would come as a serious or strategic
                   threat. 

                   2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is
                   actually pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous'
                   as a cover, but that would be pretty easy to bungle, and
                   could probably still be attributed if important enough to
                   those agencies.  The recent attack on Sony actually brings
                   this issue up- Whoever is calling themselves anonymous
                   denies they did it.  And keep in mind how much they have
                   claimed an publicized attacks in the past, even before
                   they were carried out.  The attack on the Playstation
                   Network was more sophisticated than anonymous' usual work
                   (though potentially coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS
                   attacks that distracted Sony's IT security).  But whoever
                   did it, again, no real damage came of it.  Congress is
                   holding hearings over data security, but this is no
                   different than the OC groups stealing your credit card
                   information.  LE will go after them, have some success,
                   but the threat is not that large. 
                   On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

                     I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity
                     to have a broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our
                     readers no nothing, or almost nothing about what this
                     group is and the threat it poses. Reviewing their list
                     of attacks
                     (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in
                     most of the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a
                     Robin Hood of the internet . The interesting thing when
                     it comes to their interactions with the cartels is the
                     dubious role they play: at the same time they can be
                     fighting crime by revealing cartel members/supporters,
                     but they can also put lives in risk.

                     However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed
                     by Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on
                     Earth, can conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is
                     worrisome.
                     (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

                     If I run an organization, if I am responsible for
                     government websites, or if I am just a internet user, I
                     would like to know more about these guys. Who they are?
                     What are they interested in? How they operate? Who they
                     have targeted so far? How can I defend myself from them?
                     In what countries are they active? Should I worry about
                     them at all? Can I use them to achieve any particular
                     goal?

                     On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                       nice.  i still think the central focus, and what
                       everything else can build off of, is that Anonymous
                       doesn't know the threat they pose to innocent people
                       caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing
                       on journalists or taxi drivers they show little
                       understanding of the situation.  This has long term
                       implications in not just Mexico.  They don't consider
                       the consequences of their actions and they act without
                       understanding the environment.  It was the same when
                       they released information on the Sony Playstation
                       network to protest Sony.  They hurt innocent people to
                       prove a point. 

                       On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                         Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of
                         discussing possible cartel responses, the focus is
                         on what type of threat Anonymous can pose to
                         cartels. The video released by Anonymous, threatens
                         revealing personal information on cartels as well as
                         states a member had been kidnapped. I could not find
                         any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the
                         individual being kidnapped. According to their
                         facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous
                         Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual
                         posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the Operation
                         Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

                         Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
                         distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on
                         government websites, lashed out at drug cartels via
                         the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
                         criminal cartels, including a video depicting a
                         masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on
                         October 10? With the most recent video release,
                         Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal
                         cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing
                         identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
                         journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The
                         hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow
                         kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. In the
                         Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                         mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                         reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped
                         member are not met. The potential of conflict
                         between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
                         presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of
                         cartels lashing out at online bloggers, but I
                         haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing with
                         any headaches from hackers before. 

                         What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                              o     Anonymous would not pose a direct
                         physical security threat to Mexican cartels.
                              o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to
                         exploit online media
                              o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in
                         Mexico to lash out at cartels

                         While not certain, there is a potential for
                         Anonymous to pose a threat
                              o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to
                         possess identifiable information on cartel members
                              o     It is unknown what information Anonymous
                         could acquire on cartels
                              o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
                         communications, identifiable information on cartels
                         members have to be considered in the realm of
                         possibilities for
                                     Anonymous
                                     o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's
                         ability to reveal illicit online activity (child
                         pornography rings)

                         Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in
                         the ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in
                         Mexico. As a result, their understanding of cartel
                         activities may be limited. Anonymous may act with
                         confidence when sitting in front of a computer, but
                         this may blind them to any possible retribution.
                         They may not even know the impact of any online
                         assault of cartels.
                              o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
                         journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not
                         understand some of these individuals are forced to
                         collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are
                         often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
                         halcones. Revealing the identity of these
                         individuals will not have a significant impact on
                         cartel                   operations. Politicans have
                         been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
                         Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to
                         be any consequences from this.
                              o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the
                         extent cartels are willing to go protect their
                         operations.
                                 o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                                 o    Cartels have reached out to the
                         computer science community before, coercing computer
                         science majors into working for them.
                                 o    This provides the cartels with the
                         possibility of discovering hackers within Mexico.

                          

                         On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                           Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like
                           the idea but there are several issues to address
                           and fix here.

                           These are the bullets of my main analytical
                           concern with the discussion:

                                o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why.
                           that's fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                                o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                           difference between stealing bank records from
                           government computers and overloading
                           www.loszetas.com main page.
                                o     There's no thought out process of what
                           sort of information could anon have on the
                           cartels. What kind of info is kept online and
                           accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
                           talking about identities, whose? If anything it's
                           dirty cops, politicians and businessmen who need
                           to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
                           Think about why the bloggers and media were killed
                           in previous instances. Was it because they
                           revealed operational details, because they acted
                           as informants, because they exposed links with
                           officials or because they somehow sullied the
                           cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
                           information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                                o     Once you identify this info - think
                           about if anon can realistically access it and
                           disseminate it so it causes a measure of damage.
                           Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except
                           for the technical ability by a very small number
                           of its members to infiltrate certain networks and
                           databases and steal information. Now what kind of
                           information would a cartel keep on a network that
                           is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)?
                           Where else could information be found? Government
                           databases? Once we know what kind of information
                           is accessible, we can also know more about the
                           consequences of dissemination.
                                o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel?
                           Sufficient to trace back attacks? If it's not,
                           there risks to be a lot of killings done by people
                           who may not understand the difference between an
                           anon hacker and a blogger.

                           On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                             wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                             -------- Original Message --------

                              Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs     
                                       Cartels                                
                                 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500        
                                 From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>     
                             Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>               
                                   To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>               

                             you've got some of the issues here, but this is
                             going to need a lot more work

                             You need to lay out:

                             a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your
                             trigger section is unclear
                             b) what our assessment of the online cartel
                             presence is, and therefore their vulnerabilities
                             and capabilities
                             c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high
                             security anything
                             d) how far the cartels would be willing to
                             travel to kill anyone who breaches their systems
                             or exposes their connections

                             I also just want to point out that we have
                             reasonable reliable insight that Sinaloa at the
                             very least has some significant levels of
                             sophistication in their online presence, to
                             include the use of cyber currencies and
                             significant IT capacity. There is no reason to
                             assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
                             business online, in a protected fashion.

                             Karen Hooper
                             Latin America Analyst
                             o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                             c: 512.750.7234
                             STRATFOR
                             www.stratfor.com
                             On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                             On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
","2011-10-25 17:35:41",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/874331_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
875135,"RE: Random Business Idea - Network Security
","   You're right that it's really not a technological issue. There's a great
   technology for keeping your private data private already. It's called
   mandatory access control and it's been around for decades. The issue is
   more subtle since you're dealing with people leaking stuff they've been
   cleared to see. And now you're in the realm of grey matter.

    

   And it seems to me that here, as in many other things, an ounce of
   prevention is worth a pound of cure. I think that prevention can be boiled
   down to having a cohesive team with members that feel enfranchised. You
   don't leak your classified material, you leak their classified material.
   So if you want to be shady and exploit other people, fine. Just make sure
   you are on the same page with your co-conspirators and everybody gets a
   cut.

    

   If your company sells baby cribs and your employees are church-going
   soccer moms, then you might want to tone down the Dr. Evil routine.

    

   From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
   On Behalf Of Marko Papic
   Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 00:16
   To: Analyst List
   Subject: Re: Random Business Idea - Network Security

    

   That is the one...

   Forbes mentions how companies are now focusing on \"leak-proof\" network
   security. Interesting. I think that we would have a possible in there
   since that is not just about IT. But I don't really know what I am talking
   about.

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Kevin Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2010 12:11:02 AM
   Subject: RE: Random Business Idea - Network Security

   I believe this is the article Marko is talking about.

    

   WikiLeaks' next target is big business, Assange says

   Andy Greenberg, Forbes.com

   Date: Wed. Dec. 1 2010 7:39 PM ET

   http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20101201/forbes-assange-interview-101201/

    

   In a rare interview, Assange tells Forbes that the release of Pentagon and
   State Department documents are just the beginning. His next target: big
   business.

    

   Early next year, Julian Assange says, a major American bank will suddenly
   find itself turned inside out. Tens of thousands of its internal documents
   will be exposed on Wikileaks.org with no polite requests for executives'
   response or other forewarnings. The data dump will lay bare the finance
   firm's secrets on the Web for every customer, every competitor, every
   regulator to examine and pass judgment on.

    

   When? Which bank? What documents? Cagey as always, Assange won't say, so
   his claim is impossible to verify. But he has always followed through on
   his threats. Sitting for a rare interview in a London garden flat on a
   rainy November day, he compares what he is ready to unleash to the damning
   e-mails that poured out of the Enron trial: a comprehensive vivisection of
   corporate bad behavior. \"You could call it the ecosystem of corruption,\"
   he says, refusing to characterize the coming release in more detail. \"But
   it's also all the regular decision making that turns a blind eye to and
   supports unethical practices: the oversight that's not done, the
   priorities of executives, how they think they're fulfilling their own
   self-interest.\"

    

   This is Assange: a moral ideologue, a champion of openness, a control
   freak. He pauses to think-a process that occasionally puts our
   conversation on hold for awkwardly long interludes. The slim 39-year-old
   WikiLeaks founder wears a navy suit over his 6-foot-2 frame, and his once
   shaggy white hair, recently dyed brown, has been cropped to a sandy
   patchwork of blonde and tan. He says he colors it when he's \"being
   tracked.\"

    

   \"These big-package releases. There should be a cute name for them,\" he
   says, then pauses again.

    

   \"Megaleaks?\" I suggest, trying to move things along.

    

   \"Yes, that's good-megaleaks.\" His voice is a hoarse, Aussie-tinged
   baritone. As a teenage hacker in Melbourne its pitch helped him
   impersonate IT staff to trick companies' employees into revealing their
   passwords over the phone, and today it's deeper still after a recent bout
   of flu. \"These megaleaks . . . they're an important phenomenon. And
   they're only going to increase.\"

    

   He'll see to that. By the time you're reading this another giant dump of
   classified U.S. documents may well be public. Assange refused to discuss
   the leak at the time FORBES went to press, but he claims it is part of a
   series that will have the greatest impact of any WikiLeaks release yet.
   Assange calls the shots: choosing the media outlets that splash his
   exposes, holding them to a strict embargo, running the leaks
   simultaneously on his site. Past megaleaks from his information insurgency
   over the last year have included 76,000 secret Afghan war documents and
   another trove of 392,000 files from the Iraq war. Those data explosions,
   the largest classified military security breaches in history, have roused
   antiwar activists and enraged the Pentagon.

    

   Admire Assange or revile him, he is the prophet of a coming age of
   involuntary transparency. Having exposed military misconduct on a grand
   scale, he is now gunning for corporate America. Does Assange have
   unpublished, damaging documents on pharmaceutical companies? Yes, he says.
   Finance? Yes, many more than the single bank scandal we've been
   discussing. Energy? Plenty, on everything from BP to an Albanian oil firm
   that he says attempted to sabotage its competitors' wells. Like
   informational IEDs, these damaging revelations can be detonated at will.

    

   Long gone are the days when Daniel Ellsberg had to photocopy thousands of
   Vietnam War documents to leak the Pentagon Papers. Modern whistleblowers,
   or employees with a grudge, can zip up their troves of incriminating
   documents on a laptop, USB stick or portable hard drive, spirit them out
   through personal e-mail accounts or online drop sites-or simply submit
   them directly to WikiLeaks.

    

   What do large companies think of the threat? If they're terrified, they're
   not saying. None would talk to us. Nor would the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
   WikiLeaks \"is high profile, legally insulated and transnational,\" says
   former Commerce Department official James Lewis, who follows cybersecurity
   for the Center for Strategic & International Studies. \"That adds up to a
   reputational risk that companies didn't have to think about a year ago.\"

    

   Already U.S. laws wrapped into financial reform this year expand
   whistleblower incentives to offer six- and seven-digit rewards to staffers
   in any industry who report malfeasance. WikiLeaks adds another, new form
   of corporate data breach: It offers the conscience-stricken and vindictive
   alike a chance to publish documents largely unfiltered, without censors or
   personal repercussions, thanks to privacy and encryption technologies that
   make anonymity easier than ever before. WikiLeaks' technical and
   ideological example has inspired copycats from Africa to China and rallied
   transparency advocates to push for a new, legal promised land in the
   unlikely haven of Iceland. It's also fueling a race in the cybersecurity
   industry and in Washington to find technology that can plug information
   leaks once for all.

    

   Today Assange looks tired, his eyes narrowed and the skin beneath them
   puffy, as if he's unused to even England's gloomy daylight. He has no
   permanent home. \"We're like a traveling production company; everyone moves
   somewhere, and we put on a production,\" he sighs. \"We haven't had any rest
   since April.\" In Sweden, where many of the group's servers are based, a
   warrant has now been issued for his arrest on rape charges. He's denied
   the accusations, arguing they amount to smear tactics. He's also afraid to
   set foot in several other countries, including the U.S., fearing that
   officials will find reasons to detain him. No question that WikiLeaks
   would be in trouble if he were jailed: A spokeswoman says it has a
   \"contingency plan,\" but without Assange there is no public face.
   Meanwhile, his resources have been drained by defections from his
   organization; some old friends and associates have taken issue with his
   autocratic style.

    

   None of which has stopped him from picking new fights. The promised
   release of bank documents would be the largest assault by WikiLeaks on the
   corporate sector, and Assange says the business community should expect
   plenty of sequels. In early October the site shut down its
   document-submission system; Assange says it was receiving more information
   than it could find resources to publish, thousands of additions a day at
   some points. The total is more gigabytes of data than he can count. \"Our
   pipeline of leaks has been increasing exponentially as our profile rises,\"
   he says, drawing a curve upward in the air with one hand.

    

   If even a fraction of his claims are borne out, he's already sitting on a
   crypt of data any three-letter spy agency would kill for. The world's most
   vocal transparency advocate is now one of the world's biggest keepers of
   secrets. And about half of those revelations, says Assange, relate to the
   private sector.

    

   Over the last four years he has been so busy embarrassing various
   governments, from Washington to the corrupt Kenyan regime of Daniel arap
   Moi, that many forget the corporate scandals already on WikiLeaks' trophy
   wall. In January 2008 the site posted documents alleging that the Swiss
   bank Julius Baer hid clients' profits from even the Swiss government,
   concealing them in what seemed to be shell companies in the Cayman
   Islands. The bank filed a lawsuit against WikiLeaks for publishing data
   stolen from its clients. Baer later dropped the suit-but managed to stir
   up embarrassing publicity for itself. The next year WikiLeaks published
   documents from a pharma trade group implying that its lobbyists were
   receiving confidential documents from and exerting influence over a World
   Health Organization project to fund drug research in the developing world.
   The resulting attention helped crater the WHO project.

    

   In September 2009 commodities giant Trafigura filed an injunction that
   prevented British media from mentioning a damaging internal report. The
   memo showed the company had dumped tons of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast,
   chemicals that allegedly sickened 100,000 locals. But it couldn't stop
   WikiLeaks from publishing the information. Trafigura eventually paid more
   than $200 million in settlements.

    

   How can an American corporation respond to a Wiki attack? Lawsuits won't
   work: WikiLeaks is legally shielded in the U.S. by its role as a mere
   conduit for documents. Even if a company somehow won a judgment against
   WikiLeaks, that wouldn't shut it down. Assange spreads the site's assets
   over many countries. \"There's no single target to drop a bomb on,\" says
   Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University.

    

   The best protection? With a dash of irony Icelandic WikiLeaks staffer
   Kristinn Hrafnsson suggests that companies change their ways to avoid
   targeting. \"They should resist the temptation to enter into corruption,\"
   he says. Don Tapscott, coauthor of The Naked Corporation (Free Press,
   2003), agrees. His simplistic conclusion: \"Open your own kimono. You're
   going to be naked. So you have to dig deep, look at your whole operation,
   make sure that integrity is part of your bones.\"

    

   Most corporations, instead, are turning to cybersecurity to shield their
   private parts. Despite dozens of calls to companies in tech, energy and
   finance, none wanted to talk about antileaking strategies. But a Forrester
   Research study found that about a quarter of companies in the U.S., the
   U.K., France, Germany and Canada were implementing leak-focused security
   software in 2010, and another third are considering that option. A study
   last year by the Ponemon Institute, a privacy-research consultancy in
   Traverse City, Mich., found that 60% of employees admit to taking
   sensitive data before they leave a company.

    

   *****

    

   Some of the more intriguing antileak work is being done by Uncle Sam. In
   an unmarked government building on the edge of a residential Arlington,
   Va. neighborhood, a cybersecurity researcher named Peiter Zatko shows just
   how easily leaks can occur. He lays out a blow-by-blow history of one
   insider data theft: The suspect searched broadly over the network to find
   anything related to critical infrastructure, then returned to manually
   probe a few interesting files. \"Then he walked away with enough
   information to shut down big chunks of the telephone systems in the United
   States,\" Zatko says matter-of-factly.

    

   Who was that shadowy data smuggler? \"That was me,\" says the 39-year-old
   researcher, giggling bashfully.

    

   Zatko is not your typical Department of Defense employee. Even in his new
   Beltway digs, he prefers to be called \"Mudge,\" the hacker handle he used
   during decades of exploring the dark corners of the Internet. Frank Heidt,
   a former security staffer at MCI and several military contractors, says
   that when he first read Zatko's exploit research in mid-1990s hacker
   zines, he thought that Mudge must be the pseudonym of a group. \"He was so
   prolific that I thought he couldn't be one person,\" Heidt says. In 1998,
   as part of the L0pht hacker think tank, Zatko testified in a congressional
   hearing that he and his friends could shut down the Internet in 30
   minutes.

    

   Since March Zatko has also been a lead cybersecurity researcher at the
   Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the mad-scientist wing of the
   Pentagon devoted to projects that occasionally result in breakthroughs
   like the Internet and GPS. Zatko's new pet project may be equally
   ambitious: He aims to rid the world of digital leaks.

    

   The telephone system theft case that Zatko dissected in a Darpa conference
   room was a test, demonstrating that anyone with access to a network could
   steal data without detection, despite the system's expensive security
   software. Now his challenge is to fix the problem. Since August he has led
   a project known as the Cyber Insider Threat, or Cinder. Like most Darpa
   initiatives it's an X-Prize-style open invitation for ideas; recipients
   typically get tens of millions of dollars in government funding.
   Thirty-five entrants, mostly tiny companies, have already publicly signed
   up, many more in secret. \"We're looking to everyone from academia to
   startups to large government contractors,\" says Zatko. \"We're not looking
   for evolutionary improvement. We want to pull the rug out from the problem
   altogether.\"

    

   It's a well-worn carpet. Since late 2007 every major security software
   vendor, from McAfee to Symantec to Trend Micro, has spent hundreds of
   millions of dollars to acquire companies in the so-called Data-Leak
   Prevention (DLP) industry-software designed to locate and tag sensitive
   information, and then guard against its escape at the edges of a firm's
   network.

    

   The problem: DLP doesn't work. Data is simply created too quickly, and
   moved around too often, for a mere filter to catch it, says Richard
   Stiennon, an analyst for security consultancy IT-Harvest, in Birmingham,
   Mich. \"For DLP to function, all the stars have to align,\" he says. \"This
   is a huge problem that can't be stopped with a single layer of
   infrastructure.\"

    

   More fashionable now is network forensics: the process of constantly
   collecting every fingerprint on a company's servers to trace an intruder
   or leaker after the fact-and, perhaps, deter the next one. That's a bit
   like fighting the next war according to the last one. Still, revenue at
   NetWitness, a prominent Herndon, Va. startup in that budding field, has
   leaped from $250,000 to $40 million since 2006. While the software
   generally gathers data and makes it easily available to queries, it
   doesn't pinpoint culprits. \"There's nothing in current technology that can
   do this in an automated fashion,\" says Shawn Carpenter, principal
   forensics analyst at NetWitness. \"You need a Columbo.\"

    

   Or, better yet, a robo-Columbo. Darpa's Zatko has been working on a system
   of automatically identifying what he calls \"malicious missions\": insider
   activity aimed at stealing data from inside a company's firewall, whether
   it's a Dell PC remotely hijacked by a Chinese cyberspy or Bradley
   Mannings, the U.S. soldier accused of leaking classified documents about
   combat in Afghanistan to WikiLeaks. Zatko's system would monitor networks
   in real-time for just the sort of data-stealing behavior he would perform
   himself: steps like scouring large areas of the network for a certain
   file, dumping piles of data to external storage hardware or sending
   encrypted files out over the Internet. No single episode would signal a
   leak; instead, the software would link acts in a probabilistic chain,
   triggering an alert only if a string of events points to purposeful data
   theft.

    

   Some of that leaky behavior isn't what a casual observer might expect.
   Consider the cyber footprints left by Robert Hanssen, a former FBI agent
   serving a life sentence in a Colorado supermax prison for selling
   intelligence to the Soviets over two decades. Every few days Hanssen would
   stop his normal activities and make a single query to a server across the
   network, a pattern he repeated for years. That server, Zatko says, held
   the counterintelligence database. Hanssen was searching for himself, a
   routine check to see if he'd finally been found out.

    

   \"You put all these things together into the different components of the
   mission,\" says Zatko. \"I'm looking for these new rhythms, new tells, new
   interrelations and requirements.\"

    

   Cinder wasn't created to combat WikiLeaks-in fact, it predates WikiLeaks'
   biggest military scandals. But Zatko has nonetheless found himself
   squarely in opposition to Assange's mission-a strange face-off, given that
   the two men once traveled in the same hacker circles, during the years
   when Assange went by the hacker handle Mendax (a Latin reference to the
   \"splendidly deceptive\" in the poet Horace's Odes) and reveled in accessing
   corporate and government systems without authorization. Neither will
   reveal much about their past encounters, but Assange says that they \"were
   in the same milieu.\" Asked about Assange, Zatko says only, \"I have very
   pleasant memories of those old days.\"

    

   WikiLeaks' founder, in fact, seems to have trouble accepting that Mudge is
   working for the other side. \"He's a clever guy, and he's also highly
   ethical,\" says Assange. \"I suspect he would have concerns about creating a
   system to conceal genuine abuses.\" He dismisses Cinder as just another
   system of digital censorship. And those systems, he says, will always
   fail, just as China's Great Firewall can't stop well-informed and
   determined dissident Internet users. \"Censorship might work for the
   average person but not for highly motivated people,\" Assange says. \"And
   our people are highly motivated.\"

    

   *****

    

   Shutting down WikiLeaks wouldn't stop the growing movement of transparency
   agitators. They now have a nation-size ally: Iceland. Since WikiLeaks
   scored a major scoop unearthing the corrupt loans that helped destroy that
   country's largest bank, the volcanic island is fast on its way to becoming
   the conduit for a global flood of leaks.

    

   It began when Kaupthing Bank collapsed in October 2008-a calamitous chain
   reaction that has strapped Iceland with $128 billion in debts, around
   $400,000 per capita. Ten months later Bogi Agustsson, a Walter
   Cronkite-ish anchor for Icelandic national broadcaster RUV, appeared on
   the evening news and explained that a legal injunction had prevented the
   station from airing a prepared expose on Kaupthing. Viewers who wanted to
   see the material, he suggested, should visit a site called Wikileaks.org.

    

   Those who took Agustsson's advice found a summary of Kaupthing's loan book
   posted on the site, detailing more than $6 billion funneled from
   Kaupthing's coffers to its own proprietors and companies they owned, often
   with little or no collateral; $900 million went to Olafur Olafsson, a
   major investor in Kaupthing who, on his birthday, flew in Elton John from
   England, along with a grand piano, for a one-hour concert. \"The banks had
   been eaten from the inside out,\" says Kristinn Hrafnsson, a former
   investigative reporter in Reykjavik who now works with WikiLeaks.

    

   A government investigation is still going on; no criminal charges have
   been filed. But WikiLeaks became a household name in Iceland. In December
   2009 Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a German who then worked with
   WikiLeaks, were invited to keynote a free-speech conference in Reykjavik.
   Their talk echoed an idea from American cyberlibertarian John Perry
   Barlow, calling for a \"Switzerland of bits.\" Iceland, with its independent
   spirit and recent taste of explosive whistle-blowing, they suggested,
   could become the digital doppelga:nger of a tax haven: a safe harbor for
   transparency, where it's open season on government and business
   secrets-and leakers are protected by law.

    

   The idea might have gone nowhere if not for Birgitta Jonsdottir. Assange's
   message captivated the 43-year-old poet and self-styled
   \"realist-anarchist.\" She wasn't just another idealistic protester with a
   goth wardrobe and hipster haircut. In the chaotic political environment
   that followed the national financial crisis, Jonsdottir had been elected
   to Iceland's parliament, the Althingi, in April 2009.

    

   Working with the country's transparency activists, she pulled together the
   Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, or Immi. The initiative would bring to
   Iceland all the source-protection, freedom of information and transparency
   laws from around the world and even set up a Nobel-style international
   award for work in the field of free expression. Jonsdottir pushed through
   a unanimous resolution to create a series of bills to implement Immi. They
   would also make Iceland the most friendly legal base for whistleblowers on
   Earth.

    

   Velkomin, as Icelanders would say, to Leakistan.

    

   \"The more that companies resist, the more information will get out about
   them,\" says Jonsdottir when we meet in Reykjavik's Hressingarskalinn cafe,
   around the corner from the parliament building. \"They can't hide anymore.
   The war is over. They lost.\" In Jonsdottir's vision Iceland will attract
   both mainstream media and WikiLeaks-like organizations to move their data
   to Iceland, enjoying legal protection, just as another firm might
   incorporate in a tax-sheltering island in the Caribbean.

    

   She may be getting a bit ahead of herself. Immi has yet to become law,
   though it has backing from powerful figures, including both Iceland's
   minister of justice and the head of its progressive party. Even if it
   does, Immi likely wouldn't offer much legal protection to organizations
   whose assets and staff aren't physically in the country; they could still
   be sued anywhere else in the world, given that their digital and print
   publications could appear globally. Immi could also face resistance from
   the U.S. and the EU-particularly when it comes to military matters. As
   Marc Thiessen, a conservative pundit, wrote on the blog of the American
   Enterprise Institute in August, \"Immi calls into question Iceland's
   seriousness as a NATO ally, and Iceland needs to realize there will be
   consequences for its actions.\" There could be a backlash for exposing
   corporate secrets, too. Alastair Mullis, a professor of law at East Anglia
   University in Britain, says, \"It's possible that Iceland will become the
   defamation capital of the world.\"

    

   Jonsdottir and fellow Immi creator Smari McCarthy are pushing ahead
   anyway. Immi, they say, doesn't fashion new laws; it cherry-picks existing
   statutes from around the world (source shields from Sweden, libel
   protection from New York State, protected communications with journalists
   from Belgium, among them). \"We're basing our legislation on laws that have
   already withstood attacks,\" says Jonsdottir. Defamation and other concerns
   like child pornography and copyright violations, she argues, would still
   be illegal in Iceland and wouldn't be sheltered.

    

   Nor is the idea to protect WikiLeaks itself, Jonsdottir points out. The
   site doesn't need help: Its data and submissions process are carefully
   encrypted, and its infrastructure is spread over enough
   countries-including some servers in a bombproof, underground bunker in
   Sweden-that taking it offline is already nearly impossible.

   Instead Immi would foster a new wave of media organizations and
   whistleblower outlets that don't rely on WikiLeaks' technical savvy or
   resources. Already a handful of smaller, leak-focused conduits-regional
   sites like Africa-focused SaharaReporters or Thaileaks.info-have published
   damning data. Immi's McCarthy says he's been approached by media
   organizations from Rwanda to Chechnya. German WikiLeaks staffer Daniel
   Domscheit-Berg, disgruntled with Assange's laser focus on infrequent
   megaleaks, has left the organization along with several others to create
   his own spinoff. \"In the end there must be a thousand WikiLeaks,\" he told
   Der Spiegel in September.

    

   Iceland certainly has the infrastructure for a lot of informational
   mischief. Half an hour outside Reykjavik, on a landscape that resembles
   Mars covered in snow, the Thor Data Center is preparing for an influx of
   bytes. By 2011 it hopes to have thousands of servers in its
   aluminum-plant-turned-server-farm, powered by ultracheap geothermal energy
   and cooled by free arctic air. Iceland's biggest Web host, ironically
   named 1984 Web Hosting, is excited about the boost Immi could give its
   business. \"I created this company to prevent thought control,\" says Mordur
   Ingolfsson, its chief executive. \"In my humble opinion, Immi is the most
   important thing to happen to this godforsaken island since the Sagas were
   written.\" (That's 600-plus years.)

    

   Jonsdottir agrees: \"WikiLeaks was an important icebreaker. It was the tip.
   Immi is the rest of the wedge, and it will open up everything.\" (She is
   less thrilled to learn that Assange speaks of Immi as his personal
   creation.)I ask Assange how he expects companies to cope with a world
   where hundreds of WikiLeak-alikes may soon exist. His three-part
   prescription is earnest-if a bit patronizing: \"Do things to encourage
   leaks from dishonest competitors. Be as open and honest as possible. Treat
   your employees well.\"

   He also wants to clear up a misunderstanding. Despite his revolutionary
   reputation, he's not antibusiness. He bristles at the media's focus on his
   teenage years as a computer hacker who broke into dozens of systems, from
   the Department of Defense to Nortel, and was eventually convicted on 25
   charges of computer fraud and fined thousands of dollars.

    

   Instead, he prefers to think of himself as an entrepreneur. He tells the
   story of a free-speech-focused Internet service provider he cofounded in
   1993, known as Suburbia. It was, to hear him tell it, the blueprint for
   WikiLeaks-in one instance, when the Church of Scientology demanded to know
   who had posted antichurch information on one site, he refused to help.
   (\"He has titanium balls,\" says David Gerard, that site's creator.) \"I saw
   it early on, without realizing it: potentiating people to reveal their
   information, creating a conduit,\" Assange says. \"Without having any other
   robust publisher in the market, people came to us.\"

    

   Leaks merely lubricate the free market, he says, settling into the couch
   and clearly enjoying giving me a lecture on economics. (Later, as a
   45-minute interview pushes into two hours, he ignores his handler, who
   keeps urging him to leave for his next appointment.) He cites the example
   of the Chinese Sanlu Group, whose milk powder contained toxic melamine in
   2008. While poisoning its customers, Sanlu also gained an advantage over
   competitors and might have forced more of them to taint their products,
   too, or go bankrupt-if Sanlu hadn't been exposed in the Chinese press. \"In
   the struggle between open and honest companies and dishonest and closed
   companies, we're creating a tremendous reputational tax on the unethical
   companies,\" he says.

    

   Of course, Assange's tax isn't as equitable as it sounds. He alone decides
   where to apply the penalty, choosing the targets and when to expose them
   with a touch of theatrical grandstanding-and with zero accountability. For
   better-and worse-WikiLeaks has become the Julian Assange Show. As a
   photographer begins shooting, Assange wonders aloud if the coat he's
   wearing might have been produced by a labor-exploiting company. A few
   minutes later he jokes about his \"messiah complex.\"

    

   Like any true believer, Assange sees his work in simple terms. Markets, he
   reminds me, can't exist without information. Business will come to
   appreciate what he offers. And if that requires a few painful scandals in
   the process?

    

   Assange doesn't miss a beat. \"Pain for the guilty.

    

   From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
   On Behalf Of Marko Papic
   Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 19:39
   To: analysts
   Subject: Random Business Idea - Network Security

    

   I'm sure this has been thought of before at STRATFOR so excuse the
   redundancy. I was reading a solid Forbes article on Assange and it said
   that a large number of deep pocket corporations were looking into
   leak-focused network security after these Wikileak episodes.

   I was wondering if it was possible for us to get some of that
   \"leak-focused\" gravy train. This is an obvious fear sale, so that's a good
   thing. And we have something to offer that the IT security companies
   don't, mainly our focus on counter-intelligence and surveillance that Fred
   and Stick know better than anyone on the planet.

   We do a lot of good work with all the personal/executive security analysis
   as well. Could we develop some ideas and procedures on the idea of
   \"leak-focused\" network security that focuses on preventing one's own
   employees from leaking sensitive information.

   The point here is that I am sure there are certain procedures and
   precautions that companies should employ that go beyond installing network
   security network to deal with potential leaks. In fact, Im not so sure
   this is an IT problem that requires an IT solution.

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-09 07:34:50",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/875135_re-random-business-idea-network-security-.html","kevin.stech@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
877901,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Sean, just to be clear

   Your point is that Anonymous hasn't mattered?  Is your argument that
   hackers haven't mattered either?  because if Anonymous is a mob of hackers
   as you argue, how haven't they mattered to their targets?  what about all
   the money spent fighting them?  and as Tristan just pointed out - how
   about HBGary Federal?  He said the CEO's SSN and address were posted on
   Twitter.  What about all the sensitive emails that were lost?  We have no
   way of knowing what was in those emails, or how they are being used to
   make money at the expense of HBGary.  I have always agreed that they
   haven't reached a level of threat to the US, but that surely doesn't mean
   they won't.  And there are quite a few countries, organizations, and
   people below that rather high standard who could not withstand an attack,
   including an email purge of personal emails onto the web. 

   On 10/24/11 7:33 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     As far as Aurora, I haven't followed it closely. Did they ever identify
     the attackers or number of attackers? I thought the target set was the
     only thing that led people to believe the Chinese government was
     responsible.

     2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
     responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating cyber
     intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case HUMINT is
     just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT capabilities does not
     indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers. NSA may have there own
     department for tracking hackers but it does not make it SIGINT.

     Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

     Wikipedia provides an indepth explanation on SIGINT . But in short,
     SIGINT is the capability in exploiting signals provided by communication
     devices, and what can be obtained by exploiting the signals. Combining
     computer network operations and SIGINT is innaccurate, because while
     SIGINT may be used with other intelligence disciplines in order to
     identify a hacker, it is not necessary and is no more related than any
     other intel discipline. SIGINT could help you identify a computer
     devices (not the operator) emitting a signal (wifi), and cryptanalysis,
     which is also separate from SIGINT but often used in conjunction, could
     help in providing methods to decrypt messages over a network, but SIGINT
     wouldn't obtain those messages.

     In order to exploit computer network operations, the operators involved
     are specifically trained in computer science disciplines and
     technologies tailored specifically for computer activity.

     NSA also is the primary agency for cryptanalysis. Because of
     technological demands of SIGINT and cryptanalysis, NSA has enormous
     resources in R&D, so I can see why the USG would move some CNO to NSA.
     But their SIGINT capabilities are not indicators of CNO capabilities.

     Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary labor
     for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are discussing
     operations on the scale of causing physical damage to extremely
     sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of a cyber attack that
     matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not mattered.  You chose the most
     prolific example of a cyber attack (which the whole operation consisted
     mainly outside of the cyber attack itself). Anything that falls short of
     this doesn't matter? Define what matters. None of anonymous' attacks
     have physically damaged secret Iranian nuclear facilities, but I think
     you are downplaying too much the significance of exposing corporate
     secrets, halting businesses' revenues, and embarrassing State actors by
     defacing their websites.

     On 10/24/11 5:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

       On 10/24/11 5:07 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

         On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

           1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already The USG
           arrested 10 Russian spies last year, are you willing to say
           foreign intel is not capable of conducting espionage undetected?
           No, of course not.  But I also would not argue that the SVR is so
           good to be immune to detection, as you are arguing with hackers. 
           I'm saying they are more detectable than you think.  There is no
           such thing as truly anonymous.  Everythign leaves a trail.  Will
           that trail in every instance lead to a single individual? no.  but
           it can lead to a place, an organization, and often, an
           individual. 

           2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
           responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating
           cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this
           case HUMINT is just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT
           capabilities does not indicate its capabilities in tracking
           hackers. NSA may have there own department for tracking hackers
           but it does not make it SIGINT.

           Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

           The question is if the attack is high priority enough.  Many
           people assume there is no attribution because there is no
           response, but I don't think that is accurate.  Many people say
           this, because no attribution is one reason for no response.  Yes,
           they do, and if they think that is the primary reason for lack of
           response, then I think they are wrong. 

           3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new
           laptop and start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack
           involves much more than a recently bought laptop.  In the same way
           there is an attack cycle for a terrorist attack or crime, there is
           one for a cyber attack.  A very simple attack may be as hard to
           trace as a nearly-random mugging in the dark in a neighborhood
           with much more serious crime and no CCTV cameras.  A more
           complicated attack, however, involves pre-operational
           surveillance, developing exploits, developing programs and code,
           gaining access, exploiting that, and carrying out an attack. 
           Discovering exploits and writing code can be done entirely
           offline, out of sight of law enforcement or intel agencies.
           Pre-operational surveillance and gaining access (the point of the
           exploit you write offline) would fit in my example. The point is,
           if you don't link your computer to identifiable information, you
           remain anonymous. Just like people use certain methods to build
           IEDs, people use certain mehtods to design programs and code for
           cyber attacks.  Over time, those methods become identifiable and
           more and more attributable. This is, for example, how AURORA is
           linked back to the Chinese.  and very specific Chinese, I may add.
           Being connected or unconnected doesn't matter, eventually you have
           to use what you develop, or copy from someone, and all of those
           things can be analyzed.   And that takes time, giving more time
           for your exposure Exposure comes from network activity with the
           target, a lot of the pre-operational phase of an attack can occur
           without network activity. Look at everything that went into
           Stuxnet as a great example, that couldn't be done with one person
           with a new laptop. Writing the code and hacking was just a small
           part of necessary labor for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't
           think we are discussing operations on the scale of causing
           physical damage to extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is
           an example of a cyber attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so
           far has not mattered.   All of this activity provides activity and
           evidence which helps for attribution.  Of course it is always
           possible to develop an attack, just like any other operation, that
           even the best law enforcement and national intelligence agencies
           have trouble or cannot attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that
           it's very difficult for someone to successfully use Anonymous as a
           cover and have NSA, GHQ, MID, Aman, etc, be unable to attribute
           it.  How do you know if NSA or GHQ is effective in identifying
           hackers?I don't, but I'm confident they are far better than you
           are allowing for.    They may not choose to cover it if it is
           small scale crime, however. 
           On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored
             cyber warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing
             that, since you can conduct a cyber attack without associating
             with a hacker group and still deny / cover actions on behalf of
             the State. An individual attacking US computer assets from
             China, may be working by himself or on behalf of the Chinese
             government, but unless the US has other intel on the Chinese
             government's cyber warfare activities in order to corroborate
             there is little capability to distinguish.

             It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
             operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets
             from SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual
             responsible for hacking State run servers. In the past, I have
             turned to SIGINT organizations for collections on computer
             related material, but this was due to the US being behind in
             cyber warfare, and not knowing where to assign responsibility.
             However, this has changed dramatically in the last couple of
             years.

             Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As
             an extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go
             to a Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the
             online activity to something revealing (accessing personal email
             accounts, tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop,
             etc..), and begin hacking government email accounts then never
             use the laptop again. Unless LEA could get an accurate
             description of my appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible
             security cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

             Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to
             these enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied
             to specific computer-related activities because of the
             difficulty in identifying individuals.

             I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown,
             would be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a
             common participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a
             State? Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that
             State agent organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter
             buddies, what signs could a LEA look for to distinguish?

             On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

               In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a
               bit)

               1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything
               actually harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't,
               but i'm very doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first
               real case where they could do some minor damage--to individual
               people, not not to an organization or anything that would come
               as a serious or strategic threat. 

               2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is
               actually pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as
               a cover, but that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could
               probably still be attributed if important enough to those
               agencies.  The recent attack on Sony actually brings this
               issue up- Whoever is calling themselves anonymous denies they
               did it.  And keep in mind how much they have claimed an
               publicized attacks in the past, even before they were carried
               out.  The attack on the Playstation Network was more
               sophisticated than anonymous' usual work (though potentially
               coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that distracted
               Sony's IT security).  But whoever did it, again, no real
               damage came of it.  Congress is holding hearings over data
               security, but this is no different than the OC groups stealing
               your credit card information.  LE will go after them, have
               some success, but the threat is not that large. 
               On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

                 Link: themeData

                 I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to
                 have a broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no
                 nothing, or almost nothing about what this group is and the
                 threat it poses. Reviewing their list of attacks
                 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in
                 most of the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin
                 Hood of the internet . The interesting thing when it comes
                 to their interactions with the cartels is the dubious role
                 they play: at the same time they can be fighting crime by
                 revealing cartel members/supporters, but they can also put
                 lives in risk.

                 However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
                 Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth,
                 can conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
                 (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

                 If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
                 websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to
                 know more about these guys. Who they are? What are they
                 interested in? How they operate? Who they have targeted so
                 far? How can I defend myself from them? In what countries
                 are they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use
                 them to achieve any particular goal?

                 On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                   nice.  i still think the central focus, and what
                   everything else can build off of, is that Anonymous
                   doesn't know the threat they pose to innocent people
                   caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing on
                   journalists or taxi drivers they show little understanding
                   of the situation.  This has long term implications in not
                   just Mexico.  They don't consider the consequences of
                   their actions and they act without understanding the
                   environment.  It was the same when they released
                   information on the Sony Playstation network to protest
                   Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

                   On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                     Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of
                     discussing possible cartel responses, the focus is on
                     what type of threat Anonymous can pose to cartels. The
                     video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing
                     personal information on cartels as well as states a
                     member had been kidnapped. I could not find any sources
                     outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being
                     kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous
                     Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be
                     an individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the
                     Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is
                     speculation.

                     Link: themeData
                     Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
                     distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on
                     government websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the
                     Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's criminal
                     cartels, including a video depicting a masked individual
                     addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the
                     most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats
                     towards the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as
                     releasing identities of taxi drivers, police,
                     politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal
                     cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a
                     fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. In
                     the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                     mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                     reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped
                     member are not met. The potential of conflict between
                     Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents a unique
                     threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out at
                     online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on
                     cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

                     What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                          o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical
                     security threat to Mexican cartels.
                          o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to
                     exploit online media
                          o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico
                     to lash out at cartels

                     While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to
                     pose a threat
                          o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to
                     possess identifiable information on cartel members
                          o     It is unknown what information Anonymous
                     could acquire on cartels
                          o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
                     communications, identifiable information on cartels
                     members have to be considered in the realm of
                     possibilities for
                                 Anonymous
                                 o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability
                     to reveal illicit online activity (child pornography
                     rings)

                     Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
                     ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
                     result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
                     limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting
                     in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any
                     possible retribution. They may not even know the impact
                     of any online assault of cartels.
                          o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
                     journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not
                     understand some of these individuals are forced to
                     collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are
                     often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
                     halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals
                     will not have a significant impact on cartel            
                           operations. Politicans have been accused of
                     working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor)
                     before, however there has yet to be any consequences
                     from this.
                          o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the
                     extent cartels are willing to go protect their
                     operations.
                             o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                             o    Cartels have reached out to the computer
                     science community before, coercing computer science
                     majors into working for them.
                             o    This provides the cartels with the
                     possibility of discovering hackers within Mexico.

                      

                     On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                       Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the
                       idea but there are several issues to address and fix
                       here.

                       These are the bullets of my main analytical concern
                       with the discussion:

                            o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why.
                       that's fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                            o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                       difference between stealing bank records from
                       government computers and overloading www.loszetas.com
                       main page.
                            o     There's no thought out process of what sort
                       of information could anon have on the cartels. What
                       kind of info is kept online and accessible to
                       potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
                       identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
                       politicians and businessmen who need to worry about
                       what anon is going to be saying. Think about why the
                       bloggers and media were killed in previous instances.
                       Was it because they revealed operational details,
                       because they acted as informants, because they exposed
                       links with officials or because they somehow sullied
                       the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
                       information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                            o     Once you identify this info - think about
                       if anon can realistically access it and disseminate it
                       so it causes a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have
                       any intelligence capacity except for the technical
                       ability by a very small number of its members to
                       infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal
                       information. Now what kind of information would a
                       cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
                       internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
                       information be found? Government databases? Once we
                       know what kind of information is accessible, we can
                       also know more about the consequences of
                       dissemination.
                            o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel?
                       Sufficient to trace back attacks? If it's not, there
                       risks to be a lot of killings done by people who may
                       not understand the difference between an anon hacker
                       and a blogger.

                       On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                         wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                         -------- Original Message --------

                          Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                             Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                             From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                         Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                               To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                         you've got some of the issues here, but this is
                         going to need a lot more work

                         You need to lay out:

                         a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your
                         trigger section is unclear
                         b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence
                         is, and therefore their vulnerabilities and
                         capabilities
                         c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high
                         security anything
                         d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to
                         kill anyone who breaches their systems or exposes
                         their connections

                         I also just want to point out that we have
                         reasonable reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very
                         least has some significant levels of sophistication
                         in their online presence, to include the use of
                         cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
                         is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also
                         conduct business online, in a protected fashion.

                         Karen Hooper
                         Latin America Analyst
                         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                         c: 512.750.7234
                         STRATFOR
                         www.stratfor.com
                         On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                         On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                         Link: themeData

                         Trigger

                         Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy,
                         hackers. Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group
                         famous for...?, lashed out at drug cartels via the
                         Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
                         criminal cartels, including a video released
                         depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a
                         screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent video
                         release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                         criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing
                         identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers,
                         police, politicians, and journalists who collude
                         with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los
                         Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
                         face consequences. The potential of conflict between
                         Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
                         unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly
                         different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas
                         leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have
                         little experience in handling. i believe that
                         Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
                         not believe for a second that the cartels have no
                         experience with hackers.

                          

                         In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
                         was mentioned as a day cartels could expect
                         Anonymous' reaction if their demands of releasing a
                         kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up
                         front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is
                         threatening to hit back. Provide enough details so
                         we understand who this guy is and why/how he was
                         abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of
                         possessing revealing information on cartel members
                         and operations are true, cartels will likely respond
                         with violence against individuals revealed as
                         opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous
                         members?. It also is likely that public disclosure
                         of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force
                         the GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat
                         complexity i don't understand what this means. You
                         mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
                         effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
                         against Anonymous remains unanswered . However,
                         cartels will continue their threats against any
                         individual using online media WC.... you mean tools?
                         or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers here.
                         against the cartels.

                          

                         The Battle Space

                         Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two
                         separate realities from each other. Anonymous
                         operates solely in sphere of the computer networks.
                         Anonymous does not experience geographical
                         boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
                         exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely
                         true. They are physical people tho live in the real
                         world. They have names and addresses - although most
                         of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power
                         base consists of their technical capabilities in
                         hacking. Any information connected to the Internet
                         is vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying
                         the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst
                         of Mexico's population could be quite difficult.
                          Remember that most of what Anonymous has done are
                         DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big
                         company with a website that brings in revenue, but
                         it does not really matter if you don't run
                         operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money
                         via e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on
                         the web than the jihadists.)

                         Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but
                         it's power base consists of the perceived anonymity
                         that its members believe themselves to have, real or
                         otherwise, by operating through the internet. This
                         gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
                         and everything to practice general dickery. As the
                         popular meme goes, anonymity + audience = troll.
                         Only a fraction of the large web of people who
                         identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of
                         serious IT capability. 

                         The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so
                         far has been from targeted arrests by Law
                         Enforcement Agencies.

                         The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the
                         streets in US and Mexican cities. They are run as a
                         business, always looking to maximize profits and
                         expand. But they are bricks and mortar commerce.
                         Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
                         and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that
                         from insight. There is no reason to assume that Los
                         Zetas don't have a similar capacity.  Their power
                         base is built by large amounts of revenue and
                         escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas,
                         are experienced in facing different types of
                         threats. Cartels are always suffering at the hands
                         of cartel on cartel violence. While battling each
                         other, cartels still face arrests by Law Enforcement
                         Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in
                         the flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted
                         media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
                         bloggers in order to cover details of their
                         operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng
                         for this discussion. You need to focus on the
                         possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just
                         assume they have no cyber presence.

                          

                         Anonymous' Weapons

                         Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous'
                         actions against criminal cartels has yet to be seen.
                         Anonymous' only ability to combat cartels lay in
                         information operations, mainly disseminating
                         sensitive information on cartels and propagating
                         anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced
                         websites in Mexico you mean so far and that we know
                         of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
                         cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The
                         significance of a targeted information operations
                         campaign by technically elite individuals can not be
                         overlooked should not be underestimated. Cartels
                         view main stream media outlets and social media
                         blogs as such a threat to their operations, that
                         they have continued to target journalists and
                         bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas
                         was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly,
                         on the body of a blogger. The message threatened any
                         users who denounce cartels on blogging websites.
                         getting repetitive here, and it's not really
                         addressing the subheading

                         As stated earlier, any information connected to the
                         internet risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is
                         ample reason to suggest Anonymous is capable of
                         possessing information they threaten to release. By
                         releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
                         Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of
                         those individuals. Anonymous's ability to
                         disseminate sensitive information is limited by what
                         is available via the Internet. Government computers
                         connected to the Internet should always be
                         considered a possibility of an attack. However, as
                         with the compartmentalized nature of the US
                         governments computer networks, information available
                         to Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy
                         to acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This
                         isn't clear at all

                          

                         Cartel's Defense

                                     A counter response to the video? by the
                         cartels has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous'
                         claims of a kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest
                         Los Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by
                         hackers so... how has there not been a counter
                         response? also this undermines your statements above
                         about how Anonymous is soley internet based, and
                         underlines the vulnerabilities of associated
                         members. How did they find teh Anonymous member? The
                         answer to that could very well give you some
                         indication to the technical ability of the cartels .
                         As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
                         wide web , the cartels will face a number of
                         challenges which rarely are posed for them Again,
                         how do you know? The USG has whole agencies
                         dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can
                         assume (and we have good intel indicating that) they
                         are working on disrupting the cartels.. Hackers
                         threatening cartels, can operate in any region of
                         the world. Personal information including locations
                         is only available if a hacker chooses to divulge it
                         or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
                         figure it out. Hackers don't only work for
                         Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with
                         their online enemy, if they can physically reach out
                         to them. Or start employing hackers of their own
                         under their payroll? Stranger things have happened,
                         Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                                     Cartels have been known to coerce the
                         services of Mexican citizens with a technical
                         background. Recruiting the help of computer science
                         majors through personal threats has been reported in
                         the past where? What cartels? reported where?. 
                         Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence
                         and drug trafficking, they will likely need the
                         assistance of technical experts to help combat any
                         threat by computer hackers.  While identifying
                         bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it
                         is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any
                         hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
                         enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more
                         technical experience and resources than cartels,
                         struggle to find hackers through investigations. A)
                         How do you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the
                         guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that
                         not all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                                     In order to compete with an online foe,
                         cartels will likely continue counter tactics they
                         are most familiar with, brute force. Cartels are
                         still capable of their HUMINT operations within
                         Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't
                         be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
                         communities will likely be targeted and interrogated
                         by cartel members.  Narco banners and public display
                         of violence will likely continue to be used to scare
                         online media into submission i'm not really seeing
                         the online media-international hacking group
                         connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
                         inflict harm, is something computer hackers have
                         unlikely encountered before in their life. Whether
                         the fear of cartel violence softens the confidence
                         of Anonymous will remain to be seen until cartels
                         are able to seek out and capture members of the
                         hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the
                         collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off any
                         inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

               --

               Sean Noonan

               Tactical Analyst

               Office: +1 512-279-9479

               Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

               Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

               www.stratfor.com

           --

           Sean Noonan

           Tactical Analyst

           Office: +1 512-279-9479

           Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

           Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

           www.stratfor.com

       --

       Sean Noonan

       Tactical Analyst

       Office: +1 512-279-9479

       Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

       Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

       www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-25 02:47:49",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/877901_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
878708,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Yes, in response to your first question. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Colby Martin\" <colby.martin@stratfor.com>
   To: analysts@stratfor.com
   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:47:49 PM
   Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels

   Sean, just to be clear

   Your point is that Anonymous hasn't mattered?  Is your argument that
   hackers haven't mattered either?  because if Anonymous is a mob of hackers
   as you argue, how haven't they mattered to their targets?  what about all
   the money spent fighting them?  and as Tristan just pointed out - how
   about HBGary Federal?  He said the CEO's SSN and address were posted on
   Twitter.  What about all the sensitive emails that were lost?  We have no
   way of knowing what was in those emails, or how they are being used to
   make money at the expense of HBGary.  I have always agreed that they
   haven't reached a level of threat to the US, but that surely doesn't mean
   they won't.  And there are quite a few countries, organizations, and
   people below that rather high standard who could not withstand an attack,
   including an email purge of personal emails onto the web. 

   On 10/24/11 7:33 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     As far as Aurora, I haven't followed it closely. Did they ever identify
     the attackers or number of attackers? I thought the target set was the
     only thing that led people to believe the Chinese government was
     responsible.

     2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
     responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating cyber
     intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case HUMINT is
     just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT capabilities does not
     indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers. NSA may have there own
     department for tracking hackers but it does not make it SIGINT.

     Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

     Wikipedia provides an indepth explanation on SIGINT . But in short,
     SIGINT is the capability in exploiting signals provided by communication
     devices, and what can be obtained by exploiting the signals. Combining
     computer network operations and SIGINT is innaccurate, because while
     SIGINT may be used with other intelligence disciplines in order to
     identify a hacker, it is not necessary and is no more related than any
     other intel discipline. SIGINT could help you identify a computer
     devices (not the operator) emitting a signal (wifi), and cryptanalysis,
     which is also separate from SIGINT but often used in conjunction, could
     help in providing methods to decrypt messages over a network, but SIGINT
     wouldn't obtain those messages.

     In order to exploit computer network operations, the operators involved
     are specifically trained in computer science disciplines and
     technologies tailored specifically for computer activity.

     NSA also is the primary agency for cryptanalysis. Because of
     technological demands of SIGINT and cryptanalysis, NSA has enormous
     resources in R&D, so I can see why the USG would move some CNO to NSA.
     But their SIGINT capabilities are not indicators of CNO capabilities.

     Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary labor
     for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are discussing
     operations on the scale of causing physical damage to extremely
     sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of a cyber attack that
     matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not mattered.  You chose the most
     prolific example of a cyber attack (which the whole operation consisted
     mainly outside of the cyber attack itself). Anything that falls short of
     this doesn't matter? Define what matters. None of anonymous' attacks
     have physically damaged secret Iranian nuclear facilities, but I think
     you are downplaying too much the significance of exposing corporate
     secrets, halting businesses' revenues, and embarrassing State actors by
     defacing their websites.

     On 10/24/11 5:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

       On 10/24/11 5:07 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

         On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

           1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already The USG
           arrested 10 Russian spies last year, are you willing to say
           foreign intel is not capable of conducting espionage undetected?
           No, of course not.  But I also would not argue that the SVR is so
           good to be immune to detection, as you are arguing with hackers. 
           I'm saying they are more detectable than you think.  There is no
           such thing as truly anonymous.  Everythign leaves a trail.  Will
           that trail in every instance lead to a single individual? no.  but
           it can lead to a place, an organization, and often, an
           individual. 

           2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
           responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating
           cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this
           case HUMINT is just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT
           capabilities does not indicate its capabilities in tracking
           hackers. NSA may have there own department for tracking hackers
           but it does not make it SIGINT.

           Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

           The question is if the attack is high priority enough.  Many
           people assume there is no attribution because there is no
           response, but I don't think that is accurate.  Many people say
           this, because no attribution is one reason for no response.  Yes,
           they do, and if they think that is the primary reason for lack of
           response, then I think they are wrong. 

           3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new
           laptop and start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack
           involves much more than a recently bought laptop.  In the same way
           there is an attack cycle for a terrorist attack or crime, there is
           one for a cyber attack.  A very simple attack may be as hard to
           trace as a nearly-random mugging in the dark in a neighborhood
           with much more serious crime and no CCTV cameras.  A more
           complicated attack, however, involves pre-operational
           surveillance, developing exploits, developing programs and code,
           gaining access, exploiting that, and carrying out an attack. 
           Discovering exploits and writing code can be done entirely
           offline, out of sight of law enforcement or intel agencies.
           Pre-operational surveillance and gaining access (the point of the
           exploit you write offline) would fit in my example. The point is,
           if you don't link your computer to identifiable information, you
           remain anonymous. Just like people use certain methods to build
           IEDs, people use certain mehtods to design programs and code for
           cyber attacks.  Over time, those methods become identifiable and
           more and more attributable. This is, for example, how AURORA is
           linked back to the Chinese.  and very specific Chinese, I may add.
           Being connected or unconnected doesn't matter, eventually you have
           to use what you develop, or copy from someone, and all of those
           things can be analyzed.   And that takes time, giving more time
           for your exposure Exposure comes from network activity with the
           target, a lot of the pre-operational phase of an attack can occur
           without network activity. Look at everything that went into
           Stuxnet as a great example, that couldn't be done with one person
           with a new laptop. Writing the code and hacking was just a small
           part of necessary labor for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't
           think we are discussing operations on the scale of causing
           physical damage to extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is
           an example of a cyber attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so
           far has not mattered.   All of this activity provides activity and
           evidence which helps for attribution.  Of course it is always
           possible to develop an attack, just like any other operation, that
           even the best law enforcement and national intelligence agencies
           have trouble or cannot attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that
           it's very difficult for someone to successfully use Anonymous as a
           cover and have NSA, GHQ, MID, Aman, etc, be unable to attribute
           it.  How do you know if NSA or GHQ is effective in identifying
           hackers?I don't, but I'm confident they are far better than you
           are allowing for.    They may not choose to cover it if it is
           small scale crime, however. 
           On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored
             cyber warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing
             that, since you can conduct a cyber attack without associating
             with a hacker group and still deny / cover actions on behalf of
             the State. An individual attacking US computer assets from
             China, may be working by himself or on behalf of the Chinese
             government, but unless the US has other intel on the Chinese
             government's cyber warfare activities in order to corroborate
             there is little capability to distinguish.

             It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
             operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets
             from SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual
             responsible for hacking State run servers. In the past, I have
             turned to SIGINT organizations for collections on computer
             related material, but this was due to the US being behind in
             cyber warfare, and not knowing where to assign responsibility.
             However, this has changed dramatically in the last couple of
             years.

             Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As
             an extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go
             to a Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the
             online activity to something revealing (accessing personal email
             accounts, tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop,
             etc..), and begin hacking government email accounts then never
             use the laptop again. Unless LEA could get an accurate
             description of my appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible
             security cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

             Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to
             these enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied
             to specific computer-related activities because of the
             difficulty in identifying individuals.

             I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown,
             would be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a
             common participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a
             State? Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that
             State agent organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter
             buddies, what signs could a LEA look for to distinguish?

             On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

               In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a
               bit)

               1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything
               actually harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't,
               but i'm very doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first
               real case where they could do some minor damage--to individual
               people, not not to an organization or anything that would come
               as a serious or strategic threat. 

               2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is
               actually pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as
               a cover, but that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could
               probably still be attributed if important enough to those
               agencies.  The recent attack on Sony actually brings this
               issue up- Whoever is calling themselves anonymous denies they
               did it.  And keep in mind how much they have claimed an
               publicized attacks in the past, even before they were carried
               out.  The attack on the Playstation Network was more
               sophisticated than anonymous' usual work (though potentially
               coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that distracted
               Sony's IT security).  But whoever did it, again, no real
               damage came of it.  Congress is holding hearings over data
               security, but this is no different than the OC groups stealing
               your credit card information.  LE will go after them, have
               some success, but the threat is not that large. 
               On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

                 I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to
                 have a broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no
                 nothing, or almost nothing about what this group is and the
                 threat it poses. Reviewing their list of attacks
                 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in
                 most of the cases, they are the a**gooda** guys, sort of a
                 Robin Hood of the internet . The interesting thing when it
                 comes to their interactions with the cartels is the dubious
                 role they play: at the same time they can be fighting crime
                 by revealing cartel members/supporters, but they can also
                 put lives in risk.

                 However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
                 Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth,
                 can conduct a cyber attack under a**Anonymousa** is
                 worrisome.
                 (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

                 If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
                 websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to
                 know more about these guys. Who they are? What are they
                 interested in? How they operate? Who they have targeted so
                 far? How can I defend myself from them? In what countries
                 are they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use
                 them to achieve any particular goal?

                 On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                   nice.  i still think the central focus, and what
                   everything else can build off of, is that Anonymous
                   doesn't know the threat they pose to innocent people
                   caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing on
                   journalists or taxi drivers they show little understanding
                   of the situation.  This has long term implications in not
                   just Mexico.  They don't consider the consequences of
                   their actions and they act without understanding the
                   environment.  It was the same when they released
                   information on the Sony Playstation network to protest
                   Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

                   On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                     Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of
                     discussing possible cartel responses, the focus is on
                     what type of threat Anonymous can pose to cartels. The
                     video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing
                     personal information on cartels as well as states a
                     member had been kidnapped. I could not find any sources
                     outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being
                     kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous
                     Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be
                     an individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the
                     Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is
                     speculation.

                     Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
                     distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on
                     government websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the
                     Internet with a statements denouncing Mexicoa**s
                     criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked
                     individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on October
                     10? With the most recent video release, Anonymous makes
                     bold threats towards the criminal cartels in Mexico.
                     Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers,
                     police, politicians, and journalists who collude with
                     criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas
                     release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
                     consequences. In the Anonymousa** video, this coming
                     November 5th was mentioned as a day cartels could expect
                     Anonymousa** reaction if their demands of releasing a
                     kidnapped member are not met. The potential of conflict
                     between Mexicoa**s criminal cartels and hackers,
                     presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of
                     cartels lashing out at online bloggers, but I havena**t
                     seen any reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches
                     from hackers before. 

                     What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                         a*-c-    Anonymous would not pose a direct physical
                     security threat to Mexican cartels.
                         a*-c-    Anonymous' power base is the ability to
                     exploit online media
                         a*-c-    Anonymous hackers do not have to be in
                     Mexico to lash out at cartels

                     While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to
                     pose a threat
                         a*-c-    It is unknown if Anonymousa**s claims to
                     possess identifiable information on cartel members
                         a*-c-    It is unknown what information Anonymous
                     could acquire on cartels
                         a*-c-    Bank accounts, any online transactions or
                     communications, identifiable information on cartels
                     members have to be considered in the realm of
                     possibilities for
                                 Anonymous
                                 o    Anonymous has demonstrated ita**s
                     ability to reveal illicit online activity (child
                     pornography rings)

                     Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
                     ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
                     result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
                     limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting
                     in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any
                     possible retribution. They may not even know the impact
                     of any online assault of cartels.
                         a*-c-    Revealing information on taxi drivers and
                     journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not
                     understand some of these individuals are forced to
                     collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are
                     often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
                     halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals
                     will not have a significant impact on cartel            
                           operations. Politicans have been accused of
                     working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor)
                     before, however there has yet to be any consequences
                     from this.
                         a*-c-    Anonymous hackers may not understand the
                     extent cartels are willing to go protect their
                     operations.
                             o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                             o    Cartels have reached out to the computer
                     science community before, coercing computer science
                     majors into working for them.
                             o    This provides the cartels with the
                     possibility of discovering hackers within Mexico.

                      

                     On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                       Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the
                       idea but there are several issues to address and fix
                       here.

                       These are the bullets of my main analytical concern
                       with the discussion:

                           a*-c-    we don't know who got kidnapped or why.
                       that's fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                           a*-c-    \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                       difference between stealing bank records from
                       government computers and overloading www.loszetas.com
                       main page.
                           a*-c-    There's no thought out process of what
                       sort of information could anon have on the cartels.
                       What kind of info is kept online and accessible to
                       potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
                       identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
                       politicians and businessmen who need to worry about
                       what anon is going to be saying. Think about why the
                       bloggers and media were killed in previous instances.
                       Was it because they revealed operational details,
                       because they acted as informants, because they exposed
                       links with officials or because they somehow sullied
                       the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
                       information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                           a*-c-    Once you identify this info - think about
                       if anon can realistically access it and disseminate it
                       so it causes a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have
                       any intelligence capacity except for the technical
                       ability by a very small number of its members to
                       infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal
                       information. Now what kind of information would a
                       cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
                       internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
                       information be found? Government databases? Once we
                       know what kind of information is accessible, we can
                       also know more about the consequences of
                       dissemination.
                           a*-c-    What's the IT capacity of a cartel?
                       Sufficient to trace back attacks? If it's not, there
                       risks to be a lot of killings done by people who may
                       not understand the difference between an anon hacker
                       and a blogger.

                       On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                         wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                         -------- Original Message --------

                          Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                             Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                             From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                         Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                               To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                         you've got some of the issues here, but this is
                         going to need a lot more work

                         You need to lay out:

                         a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your
                         trigger section is unclear
                         b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence
                         is, and therefore their vulnerabilities and
                         capabilities
                         c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high
                         security anything
                         d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to
                         kill anyone who breaches their systems or exposes
                         their connections

                         I also just want to point out that we have
                         reasonable reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very
                         least has some significant levels of sophistication
                         in their online presence, to include the use of
                         cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
                         is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also
                         conduct business online, in a protected fashion.

                         Karen Hooper
                         Latin America Analyst
                         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                         c: 512.750.7234
                         STRATFOR
                         www.stratfor.com
                         On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                         On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                         --
                         Sean Noonan
                         Tactical Analyst
                         Office: +1 512-279-9479
                         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
                         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
                         www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-25 03:18:15",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/878708_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
882131,"Re: Random Business Idea - Network Security
","   That is the one...

   Forbes mentions how companies are now focusing on \"leak-proof\" network
   security. Interesting. I think that we would have a possible in there
   since that is not just about IT. But I don't really know what I am talking
   about.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Kevin Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2010 12:11:02 AM
   Subject: RE: Random Business Idea - Network Security

   I believe this is the article Marko is talking about.

    

   WikiLeaks' next target is big business, Assange says

   Andy Greenberg, Forbes.com

   Date: Wed. Dec. 1 2010 7:39 PM ET

   http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20101201/forbes-assange-interview-101201/

    

   In a rare interview, Assange tells Forbes that the release of Pentagon and
   State Department documents are just the beginning. His next target: big
   business.

    

   Early next year, Julian Assange says, a major American bank will suddenly
   find itself turned inside out. Tens of thousands of its internal documents
   will be exposed on Wikileaks.org with no polite requests for executivesa**
   response or other forewarnings. The data dump will lay bare the finance
   firma**s secrets on the Web for every customer, every competitor, every
   regulator to examine and pass judgment on.

    

   When? Which bank? What documents? Cagey as always, Assange wona**t say, so
   his claim is impossible to verify. But he has always followed through on
   his threats. Sitting for a rare interview in a London garden flat on a
   rainy November day, he compares what he is ready to unleash to the damning
   e-mails that poured out of the Enron trial: a comprehensive vivisection of
   corporate bad behavior. a**You could call it the ecosystem of
   corruption,a** he says, refusing to characterize the coming release in
   more detail. a**But ita**s also all the regular decision making that turns
   a blind eye to and supports unethical practices: the oversight thata**s
   not done, the priorities of executives, how they think theya**re
   fulfilling their own self-interest.a**

    

   This is Assange: a moral ideologue, a champion of openness, a control
   freak. He pauses to thinka**a process that occasionally puts our
   conversation on hold for awkwardly long interludes. The slim 39-year-old
   WikiALeaks founder wears a navy suit over his 6-foot-2 frame, and his once
   shaggy white hair, recently dyed brown, has been cropped to a sandy
   patchwork of blonde and tan. He says he colors it when hea**s a**being
   tracked.a**

    

   a**These big-package releases. There should be a cute name for them,a** he
   says, then pauses again.

    

   a**Megaleaks?a** I suggest, trying to move things along.

    

   a**Yes, thata**s gooda**megaleaks.a** His voice is a hoarse, Aussie-tinged
   baritone. As a teenage hacker in Melbourne its pitch helped him
   impersonate IT staff to trick companiesa** employees into revealing their
   passwords over the phone, and today ita**s deeper still after a recent
   bout of flu. a**These megaleaks . . . theya**re an important phenomenon.
   And theya**re only going to increase.a**

    

   Hea**ll see to that. By the time youa**re reading this another giant dump
   of classified U.S. documents may well be public. Assange refused to
   discuss the leak at the time FORBES went to press, but he claims it is
   part of a series that will have the greatest impact of any WikiLeaks
   release yet. Assange calls the shots: choosing the media outlets that
   splash his exposA(c)s, holding them to a strict embargo, running the leaks
   simultaneously on his site. Past megaleaks from his information insurgency
   over the last year have included 76,000 secret Afghan war documents and
   another trove of 392,000 files from the Iraq war. Those data explosions,
   the largest classified military security breaches in history, have roused
   antiwar activists and enraged the Pentagon.

    

   Admire Assange or revile him, he is the prophet of a coming age of
   involuntary transparency. Having exposed military misconduct on a grand
   scale, he is now gunning for corporate America. Does Assange have
   unpublished, damaging documents on pharmaceutical companies? Yes, he says.
   Finance? Yes, many more than the single bank scandal wea**ve been
   discussing. Energy? Plenty, on everything from BP to an Albanian oil firm
   that he says attempted to sabotage its competitorsa** wells. Like
   informational IEDs, these damaging revelations can be detonated at will.

    

   Long gone are the days when Daniel Ellsberg had to photocopy thousands of
   Vietnam War documents to leak the Pentagon Papers. Modern whistleblowers,
   or employees with a grudge, can zip up their troves of incriminating
   documents on a laptop, USB stick or portable hard drive, spirit them out
   through personal e-mail accounts or online drop sitesa**or simply submit
   them directly to WikiLeaks.

    

   What do large companies think of the threat? If theya**re terrified,
   theya**re not saying. None would talk to us. Nor would the U.S. Chamber of
   Commerce. WikiLeaks a**is high profile, legally Ainsulated and
   transnational,a** says former Commerce Department official James Lewis,
   who follows cybersecurity for the Center for Strategic & International
   Studies. a**That adds up to a reputational risk that companies didna**t
   have to think about a year ago.a**

    

   Already U.S. laws wrapped into financial reform this year expand
   whistleblower incentives to offer six- and seven-digit rewards to staffers
   in any industry who report malfeasance. WikiALeaks adds another, new form
   of corporate data breach: It offers the conscience-stricken and vindictive
   alike a chance to publish documents largely unfiltered, without censors or
   personal repercussions, thanks to privacy and encryption technologies that
   make anonymity easier than ever before. WikiALeaksa** technical and
   ideological example has inspired copycats from Africa to China and rallied
   transparency advocates to push for a new, legal promised land in the
   unlikely haven of Iceland. Ita**s also fueling a race in the
   cyberAsecurity industry and in Washington to find technology that can plug
   information leaks once for all.

    

   Today Assange looks tired, his eyes narrowed and the skin beneath them
   puffy, as if hea**s unused to even Englanda**s gloomy daylight. He has no
   permanent home. a**Wea**re like a traveling production company; everyone
   moves somewhere, and we put on a production,a** he sighs. a**We havena**t
   had any rest since April.a** In Sweden, where many of the groupa**s
   servers are based, a warrant has now been issued for his arrest on rape
   charges. Hea**s denied the accusations, arguing they amount to smear
   tactics. Hea**s also afraid to set foot in several other countries,
   including the U.S., fearing that officials will find reasons to detain
   him. No question that WikiALeaks would be in trouble if he were jailed: A
   spokeswoman says it has a a**contingency plan,a** but without Assange
   there is no public face. Meanwhile, his resources have been drained by
   defections from his organization; some old friends and associates have
   taken issue with his autocratic style.

    

   None of which has stopped him from picking new fights. The promised
   release of bank documents would be the largest assault by WikiLeaks on the
   corporate sector, and Assange says the business community should expect
   plenty of sequels. In early October the site shut down its
   document-submission system; Assange says it was receiving more information
   than it could find resources to publish, thousands of additions a day at
   some points. The total is more gigabytes of data than he can count. a**Our
   pipeline of leaks has been increasing exponentially as our profile
   rises,a** he says, drawing a curve upward in the air with one hand.

    

   If even a fraction of his claims are borne out, hea**s already sitting on
   a crypt of data any three-letter spy agency would kill for. The worlda**s
   most vocal transparency advocate is now one of the worlda**s biggest
   keepers of secrets. And about half of those revelations, says Assange,
   relate to the private sector.

    

   Over the last four years he has been so busy embarrassing various
   governments, from Washington to the corrupt Kenyan regime of Daniel arap
   Moi, that many forget the corporate scandals already on WikiLeaksa**
   trophy wall. In January 2008 the site posted documents alleging that the
   Swiss bank Julius Baer hid clientsa** profits from even the Swiss
   government, concealing them in what seemed to be shell companies in the
   Cayman Islands. The bank filed a lawsuit against WikiLeaks for publishing
   data stolen from its clients. Baer later dropped the suita**but managed to
   stir up embarrassing publicity for itself. The next year WikiLeaks
   published documents from a pharma trade group implying that its lobbyists
   were receiving confidential documents from and exerting influence over a
   World Health Organization project to fund drug research in the developing
   world. The resulting attention helped crater the WHO project.

    

   In September 2009 commodities giant Trafigura filed an injunction that
   prevented British media from mentioning a damaging internal report. The
   memo showed the company had dumped tons of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast,
   chemicals that allegedly sickened 100,000 locals. But it couldna**t stop
   WikiLeaks from publishing the information. Trafigura eventually paid more
   than $200 million in settlements.

    

   How can an American corporation respond to a Wiki attack? Lawsuits wona**t
   work: WikiLeaks is legally shielded in the U.S. by its role as a mere
   conduit for documents. Even if a company somehow won a judgment against
   WikiLeaks, that wouldna**t shut it down. Assange spreads the sitea**s
   assets over many countries. a**Therea**s no single target to drop a bomb
   on,a** says Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University.

    

   The best protection? With a dash of irony Icelandic WikiALeaks staffer
   Kristinn Hrafnsson suggests that companies change their ways to avoid
   targeting. a**They should resist the temptation to enter into
   corruption,a** he says. Don Tapscott, coauthor of The Naked Corporation
   (Free Press, 2003), agrees. His simplistic conclusion: a**Open your own
   kimono. Youa**re going to be naked. So you have to dig deep, look at your
   whole operation, make sure that integrity is part of your bones.a**

    

   Most corporations, instead, are turning to cybersecurity to shield their
   private parts. Despite dozens of calls to companies in tech, energy and
   finance, none wanted to talk about antileaking strategies. But a Forrester
   Research study found that about a quarter of companies in the U.S., the
   U.K., France, Germany and Canada were implementing leak-Afocused security
   software in 2010, and another third are considering that option. A study
   last year by the Ponemon Institute, a privacy-research consultancy in
   Traverse City, Mich., found that 60% of employees admit to taking
   sensitive data before they leave a company.

    

   *****

    

   Some of the more intriguing antileak work is being done by Uncle Sam. In
   an unmarked government building on the edge of a residential Arlington,
   Va. neighborhood, a cybersecurity researcher named Peiter Zatko shows just
   how easily leaks can occur. He lays out a blow-by-blow history of one
   insider data theft: The suspect searched broadly over the network to find
   anything related to critical infrastructure, then returned to manually
   probe a few interesting files. a**Then he walked away with enough
   information to shut down big chunks of the telephone systems in the United
   States,a** Zatko says matter-of-factly.

    

   Who was that shadowy data smuggler? a**That was me,a** says the
   39-year-old researcher, giggling bashfully.

    

   Zatko is not your typical Department of Defense employee. Even in his new
   Beltway digs, he prefers to be called a**Mudge,a** the hacker handle he
   used during decades of exploring the dark corners of the Internet. Frank
   Heidt, a former security staffer at MCI and several military contractors,
   says that when he first read Zatkoa**s exploit research in mid-1990s
   hacker zines, he thought that Mudge must be the pseudonym of a group.
   a**He was so prolific that I thought he couldna**t be one person,a** Heidt
   says. In 1998, as part of the L0pht hacker think tank, Zatko testified in
   a congressional hearing that he and his friends could shut down the
   Internet in 30 minutes.

    

   Since March Zatko has also been a lead cybersecurity researcher at the
   Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the mad-scientist wing of the
   Pentagon devoted to projects that occasionally result in breakthroughs
   like the Internet and GPS. Zatkoa**s new pet project may be equally
   ambitious: He aims to rid the world of digital leaks.

    

   The telephone system theft case that Zatko dissected in a Darpa conference
   room was a test, demonstrating that anyone with access to a network could
   steal data without detection, despite the systema**s expensive security
   software. Now his challenge is to fix the problem. Since August he has led
   a project known as the Cyber Insider Threat, or Cinder. Like most Darpa
   initiatives ita**s an X-Prize-style open invitation for ideas; recipients
   typically get tens of millions of dollars in government funding.
   Thirty-five entrants, mostly tiny companies, have already publicly signed
   up, many more in secret. a**Wea**re looking to everyone from academia to
   startups to large government contractors,a** says Zatko. a**Wea**re not
   looking for evolutionary improvement. We want to pull the rug out from the
   problem altogether.a**

    

   Ita**s a well-worn carpet. Since late 2007 every major security software
   vendor, from McAfee to Symantec to Trend Micro, has spent hundreds of
   millions of dollars to acquire companies in the so-called Data-Leak
   Prevention (DLP) industrya**software designed to locate and tag sensitive
   information, and then guard against its escape at the edges of a firma**s
   network.

    

   The problem: DLP doesna**t work. Data is simply created too quickly, and
   moved around too often, for a mere filter to catch it, says Richard
   Stiennon, an analyst for security consultancy IT-Harvest, in Birmingham,
   Mich. a**For DLP to function, all the stars have to align,a** he says.
   a**This is a huge problem that cana**t be stopped with a single layer of
   infrastructure.a**

    

   More fashionable now is network forensics: the process of constantly
   collecting every fingerprint on a companya**s servers to trace an intruder
   or leaker after the facta**and, perhaps, deter the next one. Thata**s a
   bit like fighting the next war according to the last one. Still, revenue
   at NetWitness, a prominent Herndon, Va. startup in that budding field, has
   leaped from $250,000 to $40 million since 2006. While the software
   generally gathers data and makes it easily available to queries, it
   doesna**t pinpoint culprits. a**Therea**s nothing in current technology
   that can do this in an automated fashion,a** says Shawn Carpenter,
   principal forensics analyst at NetAWitness. a**You need a Columbo.a**

    

   Or, better yet, a robo-Columbo. Darpaa**s Zatko has been working on a
   system of automatically identifying what he calls a**malicious
   missionsa**: insider activity aimed at stealing data from inside a
   companya**s firewall, whether ita**s a Dell PC remotely hijacked by a
   Chinese cyberspy or Bradley Mannings, the U.S. soldier accused of leaking
   classified documents about combat in Afghanistan to WikiLeaks. Zatkoa**s
   system would monitor networks in real-time for just the sort of
   data-stealing behavior he would perform himself: steps like scouring large
   areas of the network for a certain file, dumping piles of data to external
   storage hardware or sending encrypted files out over the Internet. No
   single episode would signal a leak; instead, the software would link acts
   in a probabilistic chain, triggering an alert only if a string of events
   points to purposeful data theft.

    

   Some of that leaky behavior isna**t what a casual observer might expect.
   Consider the cyber footprints left by Robert Hanssen, a former FBI agent
   serving a life sentence in a Colorado supermax prison for selling
   intelligence to the Soviets over two decades. Every few days Hanssen would
   stop his normal activities and make a single query to a server across the
   network, a pattern he repeated for years. That server, Zatko says, held
   the counterintelligence database. Hanssen was searching for himself, a
   routine check to see if hea**d finally been found out.

    

   a**You put all these things together into the different components of the
   mission,a** says Zatko. a**Ia**m looking for these new rhythms, new tells,
   new interrelations and requirements.a**

    

   Cinder wasna**t created to combat WikiLeaksa**in fact, it predates
   WikiLeaksa** biggest military scandals. But Zatko has nonetheless found
   himself squarely in opposition to Assangea**s missiona**a strange
   face-off, given that the two men once traveled in the same hacker circles,
   during the years when Assange went by the hacker handle Mendax (a Latin
   reference to the a**splendidly deceptivea** in the poet Horacea**s Odes)
   and reveled in accessing corporate and government systems without
   authorization. Neither will reveal much about their past encounters, but
   Assange says that they a**were in the same milieu.a** Asked about Assange,
   Zatko says only, a**I have very pleasant memories of those old days.a**

    

   WikiLeaksa** founder, in fact, seems to have trouble accepting that Mudge
   is working for the other side. a**Hea**s a clever guy, and hea**s also
   highly ethical,a** says Assange. a**I suspect he would have concerns about
   creating a system to conceal genuine abuses.a** He dismisses Cinder as
   just another system of digital censorship. And those systems, he says,
   will always fail, just as Chinaa**s Great Firewall cana**t stop
   well-informed and determined dissident Internet users. a**Censorship might
   work for the average person but not for highly motivated people,a**
   Assange says. a**And our people are highly motivated.a**

    

   *****

    

   Shutting down WikiLeaks wouldn't stop the growing movement of transparency
   agitators. They now have a nation-size ally: Iceland. Since WikiLeaks
   scored a major scoop unearthing the corrupt loans that helped destroy that
   countrya**s largest bank, the volcanic island is fast on its way to
   becoming the conduit for a global flood of leaks.

    

   It began when Kaupthing Bank collapsed in October 2008a**a calamitous
   chain reaction that has strapped Iceland with $128 billion in debts,
   around $400,000 per capita. Ten months later Bogi Agustsson, a Walter
   Cronkite-ish anchor for Icelandic national broadcaster RUV, appeared on
   the evening news and explained that a legal injunction had prevented the
   station from airing a prepared exposA(c) on Kaupthing. Viewers who wanted
   to see the material, he suggested, should visit a site called
   Wikileaks.org.

    

   Those who took Agustssona**s advice found a summary of Kaupthinga**s loan
   book posted on the site, detailing more than $6 billion funneled from
   Kaupthinga**s coffers to its own proprietors and companies they owned,
   often with little or no collateral; $900 million went to Olafur Olafsson,
   a major investor in Kaupthing who, on his birthday, flew in Elton John
   from England, along with a grand piano, for a one-hour concert. a**The
   banks had been eaten from the inside out,a** says Kristinn Hrafnsson, a
   former investigative reporter in Reykjavik who now works with WikiLeaks.

    

   A government investigation is still going on; no criminal charges have
   been filed. But WikiLeaks became a household name in Iceland. In December
   2009 Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a German who then worked with
   WikiALeaks, were invited to keynote a free-speech conference in Reykjavik.
   Their talk echoed an idea from American cyberAlibertarian John Perry
   Barlow, calling for a a**Switzerland of bits.a** Iceland, with its
   independent spirit and recent taste of explosive whistle-blowing, they
   suggested, could become the digital doppelgACURnger of a tax haven: a safe
   harbor for transparency, where ita**s open season on government and
   business secretsa**and leakers are protected by law.

    

   The idea might have gone nowhere if not for Birgitta Jonsdottir.
   Assangea**s message captivated the 43-year-old poet and self-styled
   a**realist-anarchist.a** She wasna**t just another idealistic protester
   with a goth wardrobe and hipster haircut. In the chaotic political
   environment that followed the national financial crisis, Jonsdottir had
   been elected to Icelanda**s parliament, the Althingi, in April 2009.

    

   Working with the countrya**s transparency activists, she pulled together
   the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, or Immi. The initiative would bring
   to Iceland all the source-protection, freedom of information and
   transparency laws from around the world and even set up a Nobel-style
   international award for work in the field of free expression. Jonsdottir
   pushed through a unanimous resolution to create a series of bills to
   implement Immi. They would also make Iceland the most friendly legal base
   for whistleblowers on Earth.

    

   Velkomin, as Icelanders would say, to Leakistan.

    

   a**The more that companies resist, the more information will get out about
   them,a** says Jonsdottir when we meet in Reykjavika**s Hressingarskalinn
   cafA(c), around the corner from the parliament building. a**They cana**t
   hide anymore. The war is over. They lost.a** In Jonsdottira**s vision
   Iceland will attract both mainstream media and WikiALeaks-like
   organizations to move their data to Iceland, enjoying legal protection,
   just as another firm might incorporate in a tax-sheltering island in the
   Caribbean.

    

   She may be getting a bit ahead of herself. Immi has yet to become law,
   though it has backing from powerful figures, including both Icelanda**s
   minister of justice and the head of its progressive party. Even if it
   does, Immi likely wouldna**t offer much legal protection to organizations
   whose assets and staff arena**t physically in the country; they could
   still be sued anywhere else in the world, given that their digital and
   print publications could appear globally. Immi could also face resistance
   from the U.S. and the EUa**particularly when it comes to military matters.
   As Marc Thiessen, a conservative pundit, wrote on the blog of the American
   Enterprise Institute in August, a**Immi calls into question Icelanda**s
   seriousness as a NATO ally, and Iceland needs to realize there will be
   consequences for its actions.a** There could be a backlash for exposing
   corporate secrets, too. Alastair Mullis, a professor of law at East Anglia
   University in Britain, says, a**Ita**s possible that Iceland will become
   the defamation capital of the world.a**

    

   Jonsdottir and fellow Immi creator Smari McCarthy are pushing ahead
   anyway. Immi, they say, doesna**t fashion new laws; it cherry-picks
   existing statutes from around the world (source shields from Sweden, libel
   protection from New York State, protected communications with journalists
   from Belgium, among them). a**Wea**re basing our legislation on laws that
   have already withstood attacks,a** says Jonsdottir. Defamation and other
   concerns like child pornography and copyright violations, she argues,
   would still be illegal in Iceland and wouldna**t be sheltered.

    

   Nor is the idea to protect WikiLeaks itself, Jonsdottir points out. The
   site doesna**t need help: Its data and submissions process are carefully
   encrypted, and its infrastructure is spread over enough
   countriesa**including some servers in a bombproof, underground bunker in
   Swedena**that taking it offline is already nearly impossible.

   Instead Immi would foster a new wave of media organizations and
   whistleblower outlets that dona**t rely on WikiALeaksa** technical savvy
   or resources. Already a handful of smaller, leak-focused
   conduitsa**regional sites like Africa-focused SaharaReporters or
   Thaileaks.infoa**have published damning data. Immia**s McCarthy says
   hea**s been approached by media organizations from Rwanda to Chechnya.
   German WikiLeaks staffer Daniel Domscheit-Berg, disgruntled with
   Assangea**s laser focus on infrequent megaleaks, has left the organization
   along with several others to create his own spinoff. a**In the end there
   must be a thousand WikiLeaks,a** he told Der Spiegel in September.

    

   Iceland certainly has the infrastructure for a lot of informational
   mischief. Half an hour outside Reykjavik, on a landscape that resembles
   Mars covered in snow, the Thor Data Center is preparing for an influx of
   bytes. By 2011 it hopes to have thousands of servers in its
   aluminum-plant-turned-server-farm, powered by ultracheap geothermal energy
   and cooled by free arctic air. Icelanda**s biggest Web host, ironically
   named 1984 Web Hosting, is excited about the boost Immi could give its
   business. a**I created this company to prevent thought control,a** says
   Mordur Ingolfsson, its chief executive. a**In my humble opinion, Immi is
   the most important thing to happen to this godforsaken island since the
   Sagas were written.a** (Thata**s 600-plus years.)

    

   Jonsdottir agrees: a**WikiLeaks was an important icebreaker. It was the
   tip. Immi is the rest of the wedge, and it will open up everything.a**
   (She is less thrilled to learn that Assange speaks of Immi as his personal
   creation.)I ask Assange how he expects companies to cope with a world
   where hundreds of WikiLeak-alikes may soon exist. His three-part
   prescription is earnesta**if a bit patronizing: a**Do things to encourage
   leaks from dishonest competitors. Be as open and honest as possible. Treat
   your employees well.a**

   He also wants to clear up a misunderstanding. Despite his revolutionary
   reputation, hea**s not antibusiness. He bristles at the mediaa**s focus on
   his teenage years as a computer hacker who broke into dozens of systems,
   from the Department of Defense to Nortel, and was eventually convicted on
   25 charges of computer fraud and fined thousands of dollars.

    

   Instead, he prefers to think of himself as an entrepreneur. He tells the
   story of a free-speech-focused Internet service provider he cofounded in
   1993, known as Suburbia. It was, to hear him tell it, the blueprint for
   WikiLeaksa**in one instance, when the Church of Scientology demanded to
   know who had posted antichurch information on one site, he refused to
   help. (a**He has titanium balls,a** says David Gerard, that sitea**s
   creator.) a**I saw it early on, without realizing it: potentiating people
   to reveal their information, creating a conduit,a** Assange says.
   a**Without having any other robust publisher in the market, people came to
   us.a**

    

   Leaks merely lubricate the free market, he says, settling into the couch
   and clearly enjoying giving me a lecture on economics. (Later, as a
   45-minute interview pushes into two hours, he ignores his handler, who
   keeps urging him to leave for his next appointment.) He cites the example
   of the Chinese Sanlu Group, whose milk powder contained toxic melamine in
   2008. While poisoning its customers, Sanlu also gained an advantage over
   competitors and might have forced more of them to taint their products,
   too, or go bankrupta**if Sanlu hadna**t been exposed in the Chinese press.
   a**In the struggle between open and honest companies and dishonest and
   closed companies, wea**re creating a tremendous reputational tax on the
   unethical companies,a** he says.

    

   Of course, Assangea**s tax isna**t as equitable as it sounds. He alone
   decides where to apply the penalty, choosing the targets and when to
   expose them with a touch of theatrical grandstandinga**and with zero
   accountability. For bettera**and worsea**WikiLeaks has become the Julian
   Assange Show. As a photographer begins shooting, Assange wonders aloud if
   the coat hea**s wearing might have been produced by a labor-exploiting
   company. A few minutes later he jokes about his a**messiah complex.a**

    

   Like any true believer, Assange sees his work in simple terms. Markets, he
   reminds me, cana**t exist without information. Business will come to
   appreciate what he offers. And if that requires a few painful scandals in
   the process?

    

   Assange doesna**t miss a beat. a**Pain for the guilty.

    

   From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
   On Behalf Of Marko Papic
   Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 19:39
   To: analysts
   Subject: Random Business Idea - Network Security

    

   I'm sure this has been thought of before at STRATFOR so excuse the
   redundancy. I was reading a solid Forbes article on Assange and it said
   that a large number of deep pocket corporations were looking into
   leak-focused network security after these Wikileak episodes.

   I was wondering if it was possible for us to get some of that
   \"leak-focused\" gravy train. This is an obvious fear sale, so that's a good
   thing. And we have something to offer that the IT security companies
   don't, mainly our focus on counter-intelligence and surveillance that Fred
   and Stick know better than anyone on the planet.

   We do a lot of good work with all the personal/executive security analysis
   as well. Could we develop some ideas and procedures on the idea of
   \"leak-focused\" network security that focuses on preventing one's own
   employees from leaking sensitive information.

   The point here is that I am sure there are certain procedures and
   precautions that companies should employ that go beyond installing network
   security network to deal with potential leaks. In fact, Im not so sure
   this is an IT problem that requires an IT solution.

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-09 07:16:08",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/882131_re-random-business-idea-network-security-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
883572,"[alpha] Occupy Wall Street (DHS analysis)
","3","2011-10-25 18:04:51",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/883572_-alpha-occupy-wall-street-dhs-analysis-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com","attach/13/13637_DHS IP Special.pdf"
884921,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Good point. 
   In terrorist terms they are more like grassroots people than AQ core. 
   From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:11:05 -0500
   To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
   Somehow we have to stop referring to 'anonymous' as a monolith.  They are
   a bunch of different people that essentially get together in an
   online-form of a mob to carry out some action. I'm not sure how to do this
   in writing consistently.  But let's start with shit like 'people joining
   Anonymous chatrooms and claiming to be part of the movement' or something
   like that. 

   Comments in green below.  This is coming together nicely. 

   On 10/24/11 11:19 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of
     these in the US?
      What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
     I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
     whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
     because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
     revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of
     understanding of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is
     expendable to cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of
     coercion.

     Anonymous does not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
     cartels.  mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of el
     chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication as a
     tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable intelligence,
     the government will use it against the cartels. That's a physical
     threat, if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify that
     Anonymous can not directly effect physical security. Any impact to the
     cartel in revealing information will be from actions of rival cartels or
     the GoM. They may release information on a given politician being linked
     to the cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the politician will feel
     an impact (Just because Anonymous says there is a link, doesn't make it
     true). It would be up to others to take action.  I think the way you
     have it worded in the above sentence is good.  Follow with a sentence
     explaining the rest of it, because readers will have the same question
     Karen did.  Something like 'Rather, the threat to cartels would come in
     what information anonymous could expose that is useful to their enemies'

     Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online
     activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to conduct
     significant logistics and business online. We don't know how much, but
     we do know they will have some points of operational vulnerability I
     have heard of cartels doing business online, but don't have specific
     examples which could be used in assessing their vulnerability online.

     by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired,
     arrested or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I
     should say, there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out
     politicians as colluding.
     On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

       Karen Hooper
       Latin America Analyst
       o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
       c: 512.750.7234
       STRATFOR
       www.stratfor.com
       On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
       Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
       possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
       Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by people using the
       banner of Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on
       cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
       find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being
       kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and
       Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual posting
       flyers ['critical of cartels'?] in Veracruz as part of the Operation
       Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation. [this is good and
       will be enough information to go with, though you'll need a quick
       explanation of what 'operation paperstorm' is.  Adding something in
       the explaining the flyers will work]

       Link: themeData
       Anonymous, a decentralized hacker collective  famous for distributed
       denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government and corporate websites,
       lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
       denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video depicting a
       masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With
       the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
       the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities
       of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists who collude with
       criminal cartels do they specify whether or not these are all in
       Mexico? Are some of these in the US?
        What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
       group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
       face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
       was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
       their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
       potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
       presents a unique threat towards TCOs [If TCO= transnational criminal
       organization, it's not really unique.  Many such organizations do
       their crimes online, and have been hacked in response--like the
       nigerian princess scams. I think you should just say it's a unique
       threat to DTOs] . We know of cartels lashing out at online bloggers,
       but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches
       from hackers before. 

       What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
            o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat
       to Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to
       the head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using
       publication as a tool to force government action. If you reveal
       actionable intelligence, the government will use it against the
       cartels. That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
            o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
       media
            o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out
       at cartels

       While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
       threat, if it had access to certain types of information:

               -The threat is in the information they can expose that may be
   of use to any cartel enemies.  That could be to the government or other
   cartels or even local citizens (the last one may be a stretch, but i could
   imagine someone discrediting cartel members in the eyes of the public).

            o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims tocut possess
       identifiable information on cartel members 
            o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
       cartels [cut this part here, and make the point at the end of this
       section/paragraph]
            o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
       identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in
       the realm of possibilities for
                   Anonymous
                   o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
       illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are
       known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't
       know how much, but we do know they will have some points of
       operational vulnerability

      -They claim to have information on those that collude with cartels 
   (use the stuff you have above].  Releasing such information could hurt
   cartels' support networks, but most of these people are also easily
   replaceable. 
               -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents have
   access to, and doubt they have such information that provides any sort of
   existential threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 

       Most Anonymous hackers are likely far removed from the ultra-violent
       world of drug trafficking in Mexico, but it's quite possible that some
       of its members in this campaign are in Mexico and opposed to the
       violence [or something like that.  my limited understanding is there
       are still activist crusader-types in Mexico, yeah?  it seems very
       possible those with a bit of time or computer skills could have joined
       up with anonymous] . As a result, their understanding of cartel
       activities may be limited. Anonymous members in other countries may
       act with confidence when sitting in front of a computer, but this may
       blind them to any possible retribution. They may not even know the
       impact of any online assault of cartels.  [the part below and above is
       written rather normatively.  We need to take that out.  just state the
       facts]
            o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists will
       cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these individuals are
       forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are often
       victims of extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the
       identity of these individuals will not have a significant impact on
       cartel                   operations. Politicans have been accused of
       working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before, however
       there has yet to be any consequences from this. by \"no consequences\"
       what exactly do you mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and
       that happens all the time.
            o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels are
       willing to go protect their operations.
               o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
               o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
       community before, coercing computer science majors into working for
       them.
               o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
       discovering hackers within Mexico.
       need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply publishing
       tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the same camp as
       the bloggers  [yes, i think it needs to be clear that their damage
       will be similar to what bloggers or wikileaks can do--limited.  But
       maybe more a danger to themselves, since they are no longer
       challenging governments, but criminal organizations]

        

       On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

         Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but there
         are several issues to address and fix here.

         These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
         discussion:

              o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but
         we can't gloss over that fact
              o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
         between stealing bank records from government computers and
         overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
              o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
         information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
         kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
         talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
         politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
         going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
         killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
         operational details, because they acted as informants, because they
         exposed links with officials or because they somehow sullied the
         cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of information is damaging
         to the cartels themselves?
              o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
         realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure of
         damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for the
         technical ability by a very small number of its members to
         infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal information. Now
         what kind of information would a cartel keep on a network that is
         connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
         information be found? Government databases? Once we know what kind
         of information is accessible, we can also know more about the
         consequences of dissemination.
              o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
         back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings done
         by people who may not understand the difference between an anon
         hacker and a blogger.

         On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

           wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

           -------- Original Message --------

            Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
               Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
               From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
           Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                 To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

           you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a
           lot more work

           You need to lay out:

           a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section
           is unclear
           b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
           therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
           c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
           d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone
           who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

           I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
           insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant levels
           of sophistication in their online presence, to include the use of
           cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no reason
           to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
           protected fashion.

           Karen Hooper
           Latin America Analyst
           o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
           c: 512.750.7234
           STRATFOR
           www.stratfor.com
           On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

           On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

           Link: themeData

           Trigger

           Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
           Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed
           out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
           Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released
           depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a screen?
           exactly when?.  With the most recent video release, Anonymous
           makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels. Threats such as
           releasing identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
           politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels.
           The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped
           member otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
           between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
           unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly different
           operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
           Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
           believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
           not believe for a second that the cartels have no experience with
           hackers.

            

           In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as
           a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of
           releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up
           front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit
           back. Provide enough details so we understand who this guy is and
           why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of
           possessing revealing information on cartel members and operations
           are true, cartels will likely respond with violence against
           individuals revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you mean
           Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public disclosure of
           GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take
           action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand
           what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
           effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against Anonymous
           remains unanswered . However, cartels will continue their threats
           against any individual using online media WC.... you mean tools?
           or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers here. against the
           cartels.

            

           The Battle Space

           Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
           realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere of
           the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience geographical
           boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in
           cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They are physical people
           tho live in the real world. They have names and addresses -
           although most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power
           base consists of their technical capabilities in hacking. Any
           information connected to the Internet is vulnerable to exploits by
           hackers. (Identifying the pc's of individual cartel members in the
           midst of Mexico's population could be quite difficult.  Remember
           that most of what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if
           you are Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in
           revenue, but it does not really matter if you don't run operations
           on the web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are
           also far less dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

           Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power base
           consists of the perceived anonymity that its members believe
           themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating through the
           internet. This gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
           and everything to practice general dickery. As the popular meme
           goes, anonymity + audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large
           web of people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort
           of serious IT capability. 

           The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been
           from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

           The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
           Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
           maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
           commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money and
           issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight. There
           is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar
           capacity.  Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue
           and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
           experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels are
           always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence. While
           battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law Enforcement
           Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in the flow of
           drugs and money, cartels have targeted media outlets. Murdering
           journalists and online bloggers in order to cover details of their
           operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for this
           discussion. You need to focus on the possible vulnerabilities of
           the cartels. Don't just assume they have no cyber presence.

            

           Anonymous' Weapons

           Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
           criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
           combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly disseminating
           sensitive information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel
           statements via social media and defaced websites in Mexico you
           mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their
           video to cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance
           of a targeted information operations campaign by technically elite
           individuals can not be overlooked should not be underestimated.
           Cartels view main stream media outlets and social media blogs as
           such a threat to their operations, that they have continued to
           target journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by
           Los Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on
           the body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
           denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive here,
           and it's not really addressing the subheading

           As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet risks
           disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest
           Anonymous is capable of possessing information they threaten to
           release. By releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
           Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
           individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
           information is limited by what is available via the Internet.
           Government computers connected to the Internet should always be
           considered a possibility of an attack. However, as with the
           compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer networks,
           information available to Mexico's intelligence collection may not
           be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This isn't
           clear at all

            

           Cartel's Defense

                       A counter response to the video? by the cartels has
           yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped
           member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the
           threat posed by hackers so... how has there not been a counter
           response? also this undermines your statements above about how
           Anonymous is soley internet based, and underlines the
           vulnerabilities of associated members. How did they find teh
           Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well give you some
           indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As Anonymous
           exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the cartels
           will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed for them
           Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies dedicated to
           fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good
           intel indicating that) they are working on disrupting the
           cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in any region
           of the world. Personal information including locations is only
           available if a hacker chooses to divulge it or if the subject of
           the attack is savvy enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only
           work for Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
           online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
           employing hackers of their own under their payroll? Stranger
           things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                       Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
           Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the help
           of computer science majors through personal threats has been
           reported in the past where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since
           cartels operate in the world of urban violence and drug
           trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of technical
           experts to help combat any threat by computer hackers.  While
           identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is
           unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers operating
           outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies such as the FBi,
           with far more technical experience and resources than cartels,
           struggle to find hackers through investigations. A) How do you
           know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they kidnapped???)
           B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are equally difficult
           to track down

                       In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
           likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with, brute
           force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT operations within
           Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?. 
           Individuals with alleged connections to hacker communities will
           likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco
           banners and public display of violence will likely continue to be
           used to scare online media into submission i'm not really seeing
           the online media-international hacking group connection here.  The
           cruel manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer
           hackers have unlikely encountered before in their life. Whether
           the fear of cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous
           will remain to be seen until cartels are able to seek out and
           capture members of the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the
           collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience
           that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:33:26",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/884921_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
895998,"falklands so far
","   Summary

    

   On the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Falklands War, Argentina has cut
   off oil exploration cooperation with the UK in the area and is ramping up
   rhetoric claiming full sovereignty over the islands and their resources. 
   President Kirchner likely intends for this to serve as an outlet for
   domestic unrest that might otherwise sour prospects for upcoming
   presidential elections in October.  This unrest includes strikes and
   protests due to inflation/wage concerns, political feuds and demands for
   stronger investigations into past government atrocities.  His
   administration will maintain its provocative rhetoric for the rest of the
   year, but steer clear of actual confrontation with the UK.

    

   Analysis

    

   Argentina announced late March 27 that it is withdrawing from an oil and
   gas exploration partnership with the UK around the Falkland Islands
   (Spanish: Malvinas), territory contested by both countries in a war
   twenty-five years ago.  Simultaneously, government officials are loudly
   discussing the country's claim to sovereignty over the area, an issue that
   has not been spotlighted for some time.

    

   This is a calculated decision on the part of the Argentine government,
   designed to channel public discontent away from domestic problems where
   the government might be to blame, and towards a foreign object where the
   government represents the peoples' own nationalist passions.  This
   suggests that Argentina will take a hard stance on the issue for several
   months, but will avoid taking it so far that it would jeopardize its
   diplomatic relationship with the UK.

    

   Argentina will have presidential elections in October, and President
   Nestor Kirchner is widely expected to be reelected if he chooses to run;
   otherwise his wife Cristina, currently a Senator, is expected to succeed
   her husband.  The Kirchners have enjoyed widespread popularity over the
   past three years while overseeing sustained 8 percent economic growth
   rates, pulling the country out of its dismal economic collapse in 2001.  

    

   Yet beneath the surface, discontent has been brewing. 

    

    
","2007-03-28 19:48:04",1,"2012-02-27 22:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/895998_falklands-so-far-.html","kornfield@stratfor.com","","araceli.santos@stratfor.com",""
898587,"Draft of Handbook Chapter on Organization
","","2010-08-08 20:53:46",1,"2012-02-29 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/898587_draft-of-handbook-chapter-on-organization-.html","gfriedman@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com","attach/62/62169_Handbook--Organization.doc"
901056,"[alpha] source evaluations - must read
","   This is the first in several emails on our sourcing and insight
   collections.  To begin with, we will be meeting with everyone who has
   sources to evaluate them on the criteria and scoring below.  I will be in
   touch with everyone who has a source list within the next few weeks.  If
   you have sources but no source list, then you need to create one.  I will
   give details on this in a separate email. 

   All of those who need to update or create their list need to do so by
   Monday and send them to both myself and Anya.  If you need a source code
   number range, email me and I will get this set up for you so you can start
   the process.  For analysts with compiled lists with uncoded sources,
   please code these ASAP unless they are genuinely a one-off and then give
   an explanation.

   In the meantime, it would be best if everyone with sources start to
   evaluate each source by looking at least the past five insights and start
   to score them based on the criteria and scoring below so you are not
   scrambling when we are ready to set up an evaluation with you.  Also, from
   here on out, start to think about sources with these criteria and scoring
   in mind.  This will be the first of many periodic insight evaluations so
   its best for everyone to get acquainted with this method.

   For Watch Officers, please also start to think along these lines when you
   are reading insight.  In the future we will also look to you as objective
   source evaluators.  Also, please start to read the insight carefully and
   comment on it the same as you would a piece from OS.  As Reva said in our
   meeting today, we are starting to refocus on intel and insight.  As Watch
   Officers, you are well placed to comment on any anomalies presented in
   insights and compare it with what is being said in the media.

   If there are any questions or concerns, please ask.

   Jen

                               Sourcing Criteria

   The following are the proposed criteria for analyzing both sources and
   insight.

    

   1.     Source Timeliness

   2.     Source Accessibility/Position

   3.     Source Availability

   4.     Insight Credibility

   5.     Insight Uniqueness

    

    

   Source Timeliness:  This is the average grade on how long this particular
   source turns around tasks and replies to inquiries.  It may change but is
   more of a static indicator.

    

   Source Accessibility: Accessibility weighs the source's position to have
   certain knowledge in a particular field.  So, for example, if we are
   looking for energy insight and the source is an official in an energy
   agency, his or her Accessibility would be ranked higher than if s/he was a
   banker giving insight on energy.  While we would welcome a banker giving
   his/her insight, a good source may not have a high accessibility ranking
   if they aren't in a position to offer reliable insight on a certain topic.
   The source's access to decision makers, specific training or education in
   the desired topic area, specific knowledge of events/situations/incidents
   can also be considered.

    

   Source Availability:  How often can we go to this source?  Are they
   someone we can tap daily, weekly, monthly, yearly?

    

   Insight Credibility:  This is our assessment of the veracity of the
   insight offered.  Here we need to consider whether or not this is
   disinformation, speculation, correct data or knowledgeable interpretation.
   Any bias that the source is displaying or any specific viewpoints or
   personal background the source is using in the assessment provided should
   also be considered.

    

   Insight Uniqueness:  Is this insight something that could be found in OS? 
   If it is but the analysis of the information is unique, it would still
   have a high uniqueness ranking.  Or, if it is concrete data, but is
   something that is only offered to industry insiders, i.e. stats that
   aren't published but that aren't secret, it would still have a high
   uniqueness score.

    

    

                                    Scoring

   All of the above factors will be scored on an A-F scale, with A being
   exemplary and F being useless. 

    

   Source Timeliness:

   A = turnaround within 24 hours

   B = turnaround within 48 hours

   C = turnaround within a week

   D = turnaround within a month

   F = lucky to receive a reply at all

    

   Source Accessibility:

   A = Someone with intimate knowledge of the particular insight

   B = Someone within the industry but whose knowledge of the topic is not
   exact (e.g. if we were asking someone in the oil industry about natural
   gas)

   C = Someone working close to the industry who doesn't have intimate
   knowledge of a particular topic but can speak to it intelligently (e.g. a
   financial consultant asked to gauge the movement of the stock market)

   D = Someone who may know a country but doesn't have any concrete insight
   into a particular topic but can offer rumors and discussions heard on the
   topic

   F = Someone who has no knowledge of a particular industry at all

    

   Source Availability:

   A = Available pretty much whenever

   B = Can tap around once a week

   C = Can tap about once a month

   D = Can tap only several times a year

   F = Very limited availability

    

   Insight Credibility:

   A = We can take this information to the bank

   B = Good insight but maybe not entirely precise

   C = Insight is only partially true

   D = There may be some interest in the insight, but it is mostly false or
   just pure speculation.

   F = Likely to be disinformation

    

   Insight Uniqueness:

   A = Can't be found anywhere else

   B = Can only be found in limited circles

   C = Insight can be found in OS, but the source has an interesting
   take/analysis

   D = Insight can be found in OS, but still may not be common knowledge

   F = Insight is accessible in numerous locations

    

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-08-10 04:51:43",1,"2012-02-27 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/901056_-alpha-source-evaluations-must-read-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","watchofficer@stratfor.com,alpha@stratfor.com",""
904949,"Re: [latam] INTRO: Falklands/Malvinas drilling
","   er, weak.
   look forward to seeing what Allison and Paulo can collect on this. This
   could make a good analysis on Brazil's FP outlook for the region
   On Sep 21, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

     so brazil is establishing itself as a protector of Argentina?
     interesting...
     i guess they can afford to do so if they perceive Argentina as being
     that week
     On Sep 21, 2010, at 2:09 PM, Paulo Gregoire wrote:

       Yes I will try to get insight. Brazil has mentioned a few times that
       the South Atlantic is a  blue amazon  and that no northern country
       should be occupying it.  Since Lula came to power Brazil has shown
       signs of support to Argentina in the Malvinas issue.
       They do not want to have the UK next to the pre-salt reserves.

       Paulo Gregoire
       STRATFOR
       www.stratfor.com

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
       To: \"LatAm AOR\" <latam@stratfor.com>
       Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 3:37:57 AM
       Subject: Re: [latam] INTRO: Falklands/Malvinas drilling

       This is very strange that Petrobras is involved (also interesting that
       Spain is backing Argentina up).
       Paulo, can you try to collect insight on what is going on here?
       Petrobras participating in this project is a pretty strong show of
       support for Argentina in a dispute where Argentina has looked
       completely helpless.  Why is Brazil/Petrobras doing this?
       On Sep 21, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Allison Fedirka wrote:

         Not sure who Mercopress is but they tend to report on
         Malvinas/Falklands stuff more completely than other news outlets and
         a bit faster than Argentine press.  The two articles below are the
         initial announcement (was repped) that the Govt plans its own
         exploration activities and the second is the most recent article
         saying that exploration plans are still on track for the start of
         Dec 2010.  The initial announcement was well timed, just about a
         week after the natl holiday for Malvinas in Argentina (April 2).

         For now it looks like YPF-Repsol, Petrobras and Pan American Energy
         will participate in the exploration.  Not sure how PAE's association
         with British Petroleum would affect things (if at all).  I'm not
         sure why I though Uruguay was somehow involved (wishful
         thinking?).  

         April 9th 2010 - 02:57 UTC
         - http://en.mercopress.com/2010/04/09/argentina-to-drill-two-wells-next-to-falklands-waters-in-last-quarter

     Argentina to drill two wells next to Falklands* waters in last quarter

         Several oil companies operating in Argentina have teamed up to begin
         hydrocarbons explorations close to Falklands* waters. The companies
         have programmed to spend 140 million US dollars in two exploratory
         wells for which they have contracted a special drilling vessel,
         according to reports in the Buenos Aires press.
         Companies involved are YPF, Brazil*s Petrobras and PAE which is an
         association of Argentina*s Bridas and British Petroleum.
         The vessel *Stena DriMax* is scheduled to drill two 2.000 metres
         wells in an area 320 kilometres from Rio Grande and 498 kilometres
         from Rio Gallegos.
         Although not many details of the operation have been disclosed
         *Stena DriMax* should be arriving in the last quarter of the year
         and will count with three support vessels operating from Comodoro
         Rivadavia as the logistics base.
         An estimated 250 people will be involved in the drilling round, says
         the Buenos Aires press. The vessel can accommodate 180 people.
         YPF has drilled in the South Atlantic, mainly offshore Chubut
         province in relatively shallow waters but this time the operation is
         to take place at an average depth of 500 metres according to the
         Buenos Aires press.
         Stena DrillMax is currently operating off-shore Brazil contracted by
         YPF parent company, Spain*s Repsol.
         The initiative apparently has been spurred by the Argentine
         government in response to the exploratory drilling round in
         Falklands* waters by four British companies with the oil rig Ocean
         Guardian, and which has infuriated Argentine authorities and upset
         public opinion.
         The first well drilled in the north Falkland basin by Desire
         Petroleum showed abundant signs of oil and gas but was finally
         sealed since it lacked the sufficient commercial volumes.
         According to the Stena Drilling website, the company is a wholly
         owned subsidiary of Stena AB, Gothenburg, Sweden and is one of the
         world's foremost independent drilling contractors.
         In 1989 and 1996 Stena acquired Houlder Marine Drilling and Ben Line
         Steamers / Atlantic Drilling respectively; and with them, history
         and pedigree dating back to the mid-1970s. The acquisitions were
         strategic in providing Stena Drilling, not only with worthy drilling
         units, but also with staff and personnel, who brought invaluable
         operational experience and success into the Company.
         Today, Stena Drilling manages a global business, holding a portfolio
         of successful, past and present operations in the North Sea, US Gulf
         of Mexico, South East Asia, Mediterranean, Caribbean, South America,
         Australia, North Africa and West Africa. In expanding its fleet of
         well-maintained drilling units, the Company has had an active role
         in building and converting rigs and, in doing so, pioneering some of
         the most leading-edge technologies and innovations in the drilling
         world.
         The 228 metres long Stena DrillMax was built by Samsung Heavy
         Industries, South Korea and is described as a dynamically positioned
         drilling vessels designed for year round world wide operations in
         ultra deep waters. She has a water depth capacity of 10.000 ft and
         35.000 deep drilling with a variable deck load of 15.000 tons. 

         Argentina confirms drilling in Malvinas basin for next December
         September 15th 2010 - 05:46
         UTC - http://en.mercopress.com/2010/09/15/argentina-confirms-drilling-in-malvinas-basin-for-next-december
         The Argentine press confirmed that following the contracting of a
         semi-submersible rig from the Swedish company Stensa, a consortium
         of Argentine based oil companies will begin exploratory drilling in
         the Malvinas basin next December.
         The consortium which includes YPF-Repsol, Pan American Energy and
         Petrobras will be drilling half way between the Falkland Islands and
         Tierra del Fuego, in what is considered the most austral
         hydrocarbons offshore exploratory operation in Argentine history.
         The initiative is seen as a strong reply from Argentina to the
         exploratory round in Falklands* waters which the government of
         President Cristina Kirchner has condemned and rejected as *illegal*
         since these are *disputed waters*, according to the Argentine
         argument.
         At least five London quoted companies have drilled or have announced
         plans to drill in Falklands* waters taking advantage of the *Ocean
         Guardian* rig.
         In Buenos Aires Defence ministry strategy considers the southwest
         Atlantic as *the soft belly of Argentina* and the policy has been to
         sponsor oil related activities in the area to contain the
         *encroaching* British companies, according to Argentina*s Cronista
         Comercial, a financial newspaper close to the government.
         *A positive result in the area would give a boost to the industry,
         and investments, and also most importantly signal defence of our
         sovereignty*, said an Argentine Defence ministry source.
         The consortium involved in the coming drilling round is estimated to
         pour into the operation 140 million US dollars. A 3D survey of the
         area to be explored was recently finished and analyzed.
         Apparently the project was almost cancelled at the end of last year,
         but YPF was finally able to contract a semi-submersible rig which
         has the necessary fittings to stand weather conditions in the South
         Atlantic. Built to stand ten metre waves the rig is permanently
         fixed to its position by a GPS system and four independent turbines.
         The vessel will be operating in waters 1.500 metres deep and
         drilling is expected to exceed 3.000 metres.
         Spain*s Repsol-YPF has sold some of its YPF assets back to Argentine
         interests, particularly the Eskenazi family which is very close to
         the Kirchner couple and had promised to go ahead with the Malvinas
         basin project.
","2010-09-21 21:15:37",1,"2012-02-27 22:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/904949_re-latam-intro-falklands-malvinas-drilling-.html","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:latam@stratfor.com","latam@stratfor.com",""
909781,"Re: [alpha] sourcing insight
","   We need to change that.  A simple email to IT before a trip gets you off
   the list. 
   From: Kamran Bokhari <bokhari@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:51:42 -0400
   To: <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] sourcing insight
   Ok, but even when I have been outside the continent I have still been on
   secure. 
   On 7/29/11 4:03 PM, scott stewart wrote:

     Yeah. We don't consider Canada to really be overseas.  
     From: Kamran Bokhari <bokhari@stratfor.com>
     Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:49:34 -0400
     To: <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Re: [alpha] sourcing insight
     I have always been secure even though I am always overseas.

     On 7/29/11 2:59 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

       Ok, good question.

       The secure list is not supposed to have anyone overseas on it.  (And
       as a side note, if you are traveling overseas you need to get yourself
       off this list while out of the country.)  We have many WOs overseas
       and so when we send something to secure it is just one more way we are
       trying to protect sourcing by not having it sent over international
       wires (yes, of course, there are many ways that foreigners can access
       any insight sent from anywhere at anytime, but it is somewhat more
       secure when we email only within CONUS).  So either a source or
       insight that is highly sensitive needs to go to the secure list only,
       and that means that we send it in ourselves because the overseas WOs
       won't be able to pick it up.

       Alpha goes to analysts/writers (and the few others selected on this
       list) and not ADPs or Interns, including to analysts/writers overseas.

       On 7/29/11 1:50 PM, Lauren Goodrich wrote:

         your last line in the P.S.... said to send things directly to
         secure... I wanted to know if that meant only to secure or to alpha
         too.
         I think there is still some confusion over which list is which.
         On 7/29/11 1:47 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

           I don't understand your question.  This applies to both lists. 
           All sources need IDs (as mentioned in my PS - does that answer
           your question?).

           As to the question of sending from BBs, I definitely understand
           that issue.  When you return to your computer, please reply to the
           insight sent out with the full coding.  We need this info to
           really track insight and any changes over time.

           On 7/29/11 1:45 PM, Lauren Goodrich wrote:

             secure or alpha?

             On 7/29/11 1:41 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

 We've gotten lazy on insight source IDs again.  Not only do you need to
 put the source code in the subject line, but all of these categories
 need to be filled out for every single insight sent to the list.

 SOURCE: code
 ATTRIBUTION: this is what we should say if we use this info in a
 publication, e.g. STRATFOR source/source in the medical industry/source
 on the ground, etc
 SOURCE DESCRIPTION: this is where we put the more concrete details of
 the source for our internal consumption so we can better understand the
 source's background and ability to make the assessments in the insight
 PUBLICATION: Yes or no.  If you put yes it doesn't mean that we will
 publish it, but only that we can publish it.
 SOURCE RELIABILITY: A-F, A being the best and F being the worst.  this
 grades the turnaround time of this source in responding to requests
 ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1-10, 1 being the best and 10 being the worst (we may
 change the range here in the future).  this changes a lot based on the
 info provided.  1 is \"you can take this to the bank\" and 10 would be an
 example of maybe - \"this is a totally ridiculous rumor but something
 that is spreading on the ground\"
 SPECIAL HANDLING: often this is \"none\" but it may be something like, \"if
 you use this we need to be sure not to mention the part about XXX in the
 publication\" or any other special notes
 SOURCE HANDLER: the person who can take follow-up questions and
 communicate with the source

 If you have any questions, concerns or suggestions, let me know.  I'll
 be back in the office next Tues so if you want to discuss this process
 in person we can do so soon.  In the meantime, remember that every piece
 of insight needs this ENTIRE ID unless it is just something that you
 picked up off the ground from a source that you will likely not hear
 from again.  Even then, you should fill out the entire ID and in the
 SOURCE field simply say - n/a with a description on why we are not
 coding them.

 Jen
 PS: Also remember that is something is highly sensitive to send directly
 - not thru a WO - to the \"secure\" list.  Secure list insights still need
 the above ID tags.


             --
             Lauren Goodrich
             Senior Eurasia Analyst
             STRATFOR
             T: 512.744.4311
             F: 512.744.4334
             lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
             www.stratfor.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.comwww.stratfor.com

         --
         Lauren Goodrich
         Senior Eurasia Analyst
         STRATFOR
         T: 512.744.4311
         F: 512.744.4334
         lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
         www.stratfor.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.comwww.stratfor.com
","2011-07-29 22:58:35",1,"2012-02-27 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/909781_re-alpha-sourcing-insight-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
910301,"Re: [latam] INTRO: Falklands/Malvinas drilling
","   They think that Argentina is not a threat. They are more afraid of the UK
   because they associate it with NATO.

   The latest Brazil s national plan of defense says that the South Atlantic
   should be one of Brazils security priorities.

    

   Paulo Gregoire
   STRATFOR
   www.stratfor.com

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
   To: \"LatAm AOR\" <latam@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:10:46 AM
   Subject: Re: [latam] INTRO: Falklands/Malvinas drilling

   so brazil is establishing itself as a protector of Argentina?

   interesting...
   i guess they can afford to do so if they perceive Argentina as being that
   week
   On Sep 21, 2010, at 2:09 PM, Paulo Gregoire wrote:

     Yes I will try to get insight. Brazil has mentioned a few times that the
     South Atlantic is a  blue amazon  and that no northern country should
     be occupying it.  Since Lula came to power Brazil has shown signs of
     support to Argentina in the Malvinas issue.
     They do not want to have the UK next to the pre-salt reserves.

     Paulo Gregoire
     STRATFOR
     www.stratfor.com

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
     To: \"LatAm AOR\" <latam@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 3:37:57 AM
     Subject: Re: [latam] INTRO: Falklands/Malvinas drilling

     This is very strange that Petrobras is involved (also interesting that
     Spain is backing Argentina up).
     Paulo, can you try to collect insight on what is going on here?
     Petrobras participating in this project is a pretty strong show of
     support for Argentina in a dispute where Argentina has looked completely
     helpless.  Why is Brazil/Petrobras doing this?
     On Sep 21, 2010, at 1:35 PM, Allison Fedirka wrote:

       Not sure who Mercopress is but they tend to report on
       Malvinas/Falklands stuff more completely than other news outlets and a
       bit faster than Argentine press.  The two articles below are the
       initial announcement (was repped) that the Govt plans its own
       exploration activities and the second is the most recent article
       saying that exploration plans are still on track for the start of Dec
       2010.  The initial announcement was well timed, just about a week
       after the natl holiday for Malvinas in Argentina (April 2).

       For now it looks like YPF-Repsol, Petrobras and Pan American Energy
       will participate in the exploration.  Not sure how PAE's association
       with British Petroleum would affect things (if at all).  I'm not sure
       why I though Uruguay was somehow involved (wishful thinking?).  

       April 9th 2010 - 02:57 UTC
       - http://en.mercopress.com/2010/04/09/argentina-to-drill-two-wells-next-to-falklands-waters-in-last-quarter

    Argentina to drill two wells next to Falklandsa** waters in last quarter

       Several oil companies operating in Argentina have teamed up to begin
       hydrocarbons explorations close to Falklandsa** waters. The companies
       have programmed to spend 140 million US dollars in two exploratory
       wells for which they have contracted a special drilling vessel,
       according to reports in the Buenos Aires press.
       Companies involved are YPF, Brazila**s Petrobras and PAE which is an
       association of Argentinaa**s Bridas and British Petroleum.
       The vessel a**Stena DriMaxa** is scheduled to drill two 2.000 metres
       wells in an area 320 kilometres from Rio Grande and 498 kilometres
       from Rio Gallegos.
       Although not many details of the operation have been disclosed
       a**Stena DriMaxa** should be arriving in the last quarter of the year
       and will count with three support vessels operating from Comodoro
       Rivadavia as the logistics base.
       An estimated 250 people will be involved in the drilling round, says
       the Buenos Aires press. The vessel can accommodate 180 people.
       YPF has drilled in the South Atlantic, mainly offshore Chubut province
       in relatively shallow waters but this time the operation is to take
       place at an average depth of 500 metres according to the Buenos Aires
       press.
       Stena DrillMax is currently operating off-shore Brazil contracted by
       YPF parent company, Spaina**s Repsol.
       The initiative apparently has been spurred by the Argentine government
       in response to the exploratory drilling round in Falklandsa** waters
       by four British companies with the oil rig Ocean Guardian, and which
       has infuriated Argentine authorities and upset public opinion.
       The first well drilled in the north Falkland basin by Desire Petroleum
       showed abundant signs of oil and gas but was finally sealed since it
       lacked the sufficient commercial volumes.
       According to the Stena Drilling website, the company is a wholly owned
       subsidiary of Stena AB, Gothenburg, Sweden and is one of the world's
       foremost independent drilling contractors.
       In 1989 and 1996 Stena acquired Houlder Marine Drilling and Ben Line
       Steamers / Atlantic Drilling respectively; and with them, history and
       pedigree dating back to the mid-1970s. The acquisitions were strategic
       in providing Stena Drilling, not only with worthy drilling units, but
       also with staff and personnel, who brought invaluable operational
       experience and success into the Company.
       Today, Stena Drilling manages a global business, holding a portfolio
       of successful, past and present operations in the North Sea, US Gulf
       of Mexico, South East Asia, Mediterranean, Caribbean, South America,
       Australia, North Africa and West Africa. In expanding its fleet of
       well-maintained drilling units, the Company has had an active role in
       building and converting rigs and, in doing so, pioneering some of the
       most leading-edge technologies and innovations in the drilling world.
       The 228 metres long Stena DrillMax was built by Samsung Heavy
       Industries, South Korea and is described as a dynamically positioned
       drilling vessels designed for year round world wide operations in
       ultra deep waters. She has a water depth capacity of 10.000 ft and
       35.000 deep drilling with a variable deck load of 15.000 tons. 

       Argentina confirms drilling in Malvinas basin for next December
       September 15th 2010 - 05:46
       UTC - http://en.mercopress.com/2010/09/15/argentina-confirms-drilling-in-malvinas-basin-for-next-december
       The Argentine press confirmed that following the contracting of a
       semi-submersible rig from the Swedish company Stensa, a consortium of
       Argentine based oil companies will begin exploratory drilling in the
       Malvinas basin next December.
       The consortium which includes YPF-Repsol, Pan American Energy and
       Petrobras will be drilling half way between the Falkland Islands and
       Tierra del Fuego, in what is considered the most austral hydrocarbons
       offshore exploratory operation in Argentine history.
       The initiative is seen as a strong reply from Argentina to the
       exploratory round in Falklandsa** waters which the government of
       President Cristina Kirchner has condemned and rejected as
       a**illegala** since these are a**disputed watersa**, according to the
       Argentine argument.
       At least five London quoted companies have drilled or have announced
       plans to drill in Falklandsa** waters taking advantage of the a**Ocean
       Guardiana** rig.
       In Buenos Aires Defence ministry strategy considers the southwest
       Atlantic as a**the soft belly of Argentinaa** and the policy has been
       to sponsor oil related activities in the area to contain the
       a**encroachinga** British companies, according to Argentinaa**s
       Cronista Comercial, a financial newspaper close to the government.
       a**A positive result in the area would give a boost to the industry,
       and investments, and also most importantly signal defence of our
       sovereigntya**, said an Argentine Defence ministry source.
       The consortium involved in the coming drilling round is estimated to
       pour into the operation 140 million US dollars. A 3D survey of the
       area to be explored was recently finished and analyzed.
       Apparently the project was almost cancelled at the end of last year,
       but YPF was finally able to contract a semi-submersible rig which has
       the necessary fittings to stand weather conditions in the South
       Atlantic. Built to stand ten metre waves the rig is permanently fixed
       to its position by a GPS system and four independent turbines. The
       vessel will be operating in waters 1.500 metres deep and drilling is
       expected to exceed 3.000 metres.
       Spaina**s Repsol-YPF has sold some of its YPF assets back to Argentine
       interests, particularly the Eskenazi family which is very close to the
       Kirchner couple and had promised to go ahead with the Malvinas basin
       project.
","2010-09-21 21:15:38",1,"2012-02-27 22:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/910301_re-latam-intro-falklands-malvinas-drilling-.html","paulo.gregoire@stratfor.com","mailto:latam@stratfor.com","latam@stratfor.com",""
942090,"Geopolitical Weekly : Taking Stock of WikiLeaks
","    Stratfor logo                                                             
   Taking Stock of WikiLeaks                                                  
                                                                              
    December 14, 2010                                                         
                                                                              
    Germany and the Failure of Multiculturalism                               
                                                                              
    By George Friedman                                                        
                                                                              
    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.                                                
                                                                              
    Let's consider the most controversial revelation, one of the tens of      
    thousands of reports released on Iraq and Afghanistan and one in which a  
    video indicated that civilians were deliberately targeted by U.S.         
    troops. The first point, of course, is that the insurgents, in violation  
    of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, did not go into combat wearing armbands   
    or other distinctive clothing to distinguish themselves from              
    non-combatants. The Geneva Conventions have always been adamant on this   
    requirement because they regarded combatants operating under the cover    
    of civilians as being responsible for putting those civilians in harm's   
    way, not the uniformed troops who were forced to distinguish between      
    combatants and non-combatants when the combatants deliberately chose to   
    act in violation of the Geneva Conventions.                               
                                                                              
    It follows from this that such actions against civilians are inevitable   
    in the kind of war Iraqi insurgents chose to wage. Obviously, this        
    particular event has to be carefully analyzed, but in a war in which      
    combatants blend with non-combatants, civilian casualties will occur,     
    and so will criminal actions by uniformed troops. Hundreds of thousands   
    of troops have fought in Iraq, and the idea that criminal acts would be   
    absent is absurd. What is most startling is not the presence of           
    potentially criminal actions but their scarcity. Anyone who has been      
    close to combat or who has read histories of World War II would be        
    struck not by the presence of war crimes but by the fact that in all the  
    WikiLeaks files so few potential cases are found. War is controlled       
    violence, and when controls fail - as they inevitably do - uncontrolled   
    and potentially criminal violence occurs. However, the case cited by      
    WikiLeaks with much fanfare did not clearly show criminal actions on the  
    part of American troops as much as it did the consequences of the         
    insurgents violating the Geneva Conventions.                              
                                                                              
    Only those who were not paying attention to the fact that there was a     
    war going on, or who had no understanding of war, or who wanted to        
    pretend to be shocked for political reasons, missed two crucial points:   
    It was the insurgents who would be held responsible for criminal acts     
    under the Geneva Conventions for posing as non-combatants, and there      
    were extraordinarily few cases of potential war crimes that were          
    contained in the leaks.                                                   
                                                                              
    The diplomatic leaks are similar. There is precious little that was       
    revealed that was unknown to the informed observer. For example, anyone   
    reading STRATFOR knows we have argued that it was not only the Israelis   
    but also the Saudis that were most concerned about Iranian power and      
    most insistent that the United States do something about it. While the    
    media treated this as a significant revelation, it required a profound    
    lack of understanding of the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf to regard    
    U.S. diplomatic cables on the subject as surprising.                      
                                                                              
    U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates' statement in the leaks that the      
    Saudis were always prepared to fight to the last American was             
    embarrassing, in the sense that Gates would have to meet with Saudi       
    leaders in the future and would do so with them knowing what he thinks    
    of them. Of course, the Saudis are canny politicians and diplomats and    
    they already knew how the American leadership regarded their demands.     
                                                                              
    There were other embarrassments also known by the informed observer.      
    Almost anyone who worries about such things is aware that Italian Prime   
    Minister Silvio Berlusconi is close to the Russians and likes to party    
    with young women. The latest batch of leaks revealed that the American    
    diplomatic service was also aware of this. And now Berlusconi is aware    
    that they know of these things, which will make it hard for diplomats to  
    pretend that they don't know of these things. Of course, Berlusconi was   
    aware that everyone knew of these things and clearly didn't care, since   
    the charges were all over Italian media.                                  
                                                                              
    I am not cherry-picking the Saudi or Italian memos. The consistent        
    reality of the leaks is that they do not reveal anything new to the       
    informed but do provide some amusement over certain comments, such as     
    Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitri Medvedev       
    being called \"Batman and Robin.\" That's amusing, but it isn't             
    significant. Amusing and interesting but almost never significant is      
    what I come away with having read through all three waves of leaks.       
                                                                              
    Obviously, the leaks are being used by foreign politicians to their own   
    advantage. For example, the Russians feigned shock that NATO would be     
    reassuring the Balts about defense against a potential Russian invasion   
    or the Poles using the leaks to claim that solid U.S.-Polish relations    
    are an illusion. The Russians know well of NATO plans for defending the   
    Baltic states against a hypothetical Russian invasion, and the Poles      
    know equally well that U.S.-Polish relations are complex but far from     
    illusory. The leaks provide an opportunity for feigning shock and anger   
    and extracting possible minor concessions or controlling atmospherics.    
    They do not, however, change the structure of geopolitics.                
                                                                              
    Indeed, U.S. diplomats come away looking sharp, insightful and decent.    
    While their public statements after a conference may be vacuous, it is    
    encouraging to see that their read of the situation and of foreign        
    leaders is unsentimental and astute. Everything from memos on senior      
    leaders to anonymous snippets from apparently junior diplomats not only   
    are on target (in the sense that STRATFOR agrees with them) but are also  
    well-written and clear. I would argue that the leaks paint a flattering   
    picture overall of the intellect of U.S. officials without revealing,     
    for the most part, anything particularly embarrassing.                    
                                                                              
    At the same time, there were snarky and foolish remarks in some of the    
    leaks, particularly personal comments about leaders and sometimes their   
    families that were unnecessarily offensive. Some of these will damage     
    diplomatic careers, most generated a good deal of personal tension and    
    none of their authors will likely return to the countries in which they   
    served. Much was indeed unprofessional, but the task of a diplomat is to  
    provide a sense of place in its smallest details, and none expect their   
    observations ever to be seen by the wrong people. Nor do nations ever     
    shift geopolitical course over such insults, not in the long run. These   
    personal insults were by far the most significant embarrassments to be    
    found in the latest release. Personal tension is not, however,            
    international tension.                                                    
                                                                              
    This raises the question of why diplomats can't always simply state       
    their minds rather than publicly mouth preposterous platitudes. It could  
    be as simple as this: My son was a terrible pianist. He completely        
    lacked talent. After his recitals at age 10, I would pretend to be        
    enthralled. He knew he was awful and he knew I knew he was awful, but it  
    was appropriate that I not admit what I knew. It is called politeness     
    and sometimes affection. There is rarely affection among nations, but     
    politeness calls for behaving differently when a person is in the         
    company of certain other people than when that person is with colleagues  
    talking about those people. This is the simplest of human rules. Not      
    admitting what you know about others is the foundation of civilization.   
    The same is true among diplomats and nations.                             
                                                                              
    And in the end, this is all I found in the latest WikiLeaks release: a    
    great deal of information about people who aren't American that others    
    certainly knew and were aware that the Americans knew, and now they have  
    all seen it in writing. It would take someone who truly doesn't           
    understand how geopolitics really works to think that this would make a   
    difference. Some diplomats may wind up in other postings, and perhaps     
    some careers will be ended. But the idea that this would somehow change   
    the geopolitics of our time is really hard to fathom. I have yet to see   
    Assange point to something so significant that that it would justify his  
    claim. It may well be that the United States is hiding secrets that       
    would reveal it to be monstrous. If so, it is not to be found in what     
    has been released so far.                                                 
                                                                              
    There is, of course, the question of whether states should hold secrets,  
    which is at the root of the WikiLeaks issue. Assange claims that by       
    revealing these secrets WikiLeaks is doing a service. His ultimate        
    maxim, as he has said on several occasions, is that if money and          
    resources are being spent on keeping something secret, then the reasons   
    must be insidious. Nations have secrets for many reasons, from            
    protecting a military or intelligence advantage to seeking some           
    advantage in negotiations to, at times, hiding nefarious plans. But it    
    is difficult to imagine a state - or a business or a church - acting      
    without confidentiality. Imagine that everything you wrote and said in    
    an attempt to figure out a problem was made public? Every stupid idea     
    that you discarded or clueless comment you expressed would now be pinned  
    on you. But more than that, when you argue that nations should engage in  
    diplomacy rather than war, taking away privacy makes diplomacy            
    impossible. If what you really think of the guy on the other side of the  
    table is made public, how can diplomacy work?                             
                                                                              
    This is the contradiction at the heart of the WikiLeaks project. Given    
    what I have read Assange saying, he seems to me to be an opponent of war  
    and a supporter of peace. Yet what he did in leaking these documents, if  
    the leaking did anything at all, is make diplomacy more difficult. It is  
    not that it will lead to war by any means; it is simply that one cannot   
    advocate negotiations and then demand that negotiators be denied          
    confidentiality in which to conduct their negotiations. No business       
    could do that, nor could any other institution. Note how vigorously       
    WikiLeaks hides the inner workings of its own organization, from how it   
    is funded to the people it employs.                                       
                                                                              
    Assange's claims are made even more interesting in terms of his           
    \"thermonuclear\" threat. Apparently there are massive files that will be   
    revealed if any harm comes to him. Implicit is the idea that they will    
    not be revealed if he is unharmed - otherwise the threat makes no sense.  
    So, Assange's position is that he has secrets and will keep them secret   
    if he is not harmed. I regard this as a perfectly reasonable and          
    plausible position. One of the best uses for secrets is to control what   
    the other side does to you. So Assange is absolutely committed to         
    revealing the truth unless it serves his interests not to, in which case  
    the public has no need to know.                                           
                                                                              
    It is difficult to see what harm the leaks have done, beyond              
    embarrassment. It is also difficult to understand why WikiLeaks thinks    
    it has changed history or why Assange lacks a sufficient sense of irony   
    not to see the contradiction between his position on openness and his     
    willingness to keep secrets when they benefit him. But there is also      
    something important here, which is how this all was leaked in the first   
    place.                                                                    
                                                                              
    To begin that explanation, we have to go back to 9/11 and the feeling in  
    its aftermath that the failure of various government entities to share    
    information contributed to the disaster. The answer was to share          
    information so that intelligence analysts could draw intelligence from    
    all sources in order to connect the dots. Intelligence organizations      
    hate sharing information because it makes vast amounts of information     
    vulnerable. Compartmentalization makes it hard to connect dots, but it    
    also makes it harder to have a WikiLeaks release. The tension between     
    intelligence and security is eternal, and there will never be a clear     
    solution.                                                                 
                                                                              
    The real issue is who had access to this mass of files and what controls  
    were put on them. Did the IT department track all external drives or      
    e-mails? One of the reasons to be casual is that this was information     
    that was classified secret and below, with the vast majority being at     
    the confidential, no-foreign-distribution level. This information was     
    not considered highly sensitive by the U.S. government. Based on the      
    latest trove, it is hard to figure out how the U.S. government decides    
    to classify material. But it has to be remembered that given their level  
    of classification these files did not have the highest security around    
    them because they were not seen as highly sensitive.                      
                                                                              
    Still, a crime occurred. According to the case of Daniel Ellsberg, who    
    gave a copy of the Pentagon Papers on Vietnam to a New York Times         
    reporter, it is a crime for someone with a security clearance to provide  
    classified material for publication but not a crime for a publisher to    
    publish it, or so it has become practice since the Ellsberg case. Legal   
    experts can debate the nuances, but this has been the practice for        
    almost 40 years. The bright line is whether the publisher in any way      
    encouraged or participated in either the theft of the information or in   
    having it passed on to him. In the Ellsberg case, he handed it to         
    reporters without them even knowing what it was. Assange has been         
    insisting that he was the passive recipient of information that he had    
    nothing to do with securing.                                              
                                                                              
    Now it is interesting whether the sheer existence of WikiLeaks            
    constituted encouragement or conspiracy with anyone willing to pass on    
    classified information to him. But more interesting by far is the         
    sequence of events that led a U.S. Army private first class not only to   
    secure the material but to know where to send it and how to get it        
    there. If Pfc. Bradley Manning conceived and executed the theft by        
    himself, and gave the information to WikiLeaks unprompted, Assange is     
    clear. But anyone who assisted Manning or encouraged him is probably      
    guilty of conspiracy, and if Assange knew what was being done, he is      
    probably guilty, too. There was talk about some people at MIT helping     
    Manning. Unscrambling the sequence is what the Justice Department is      
    undoubtedly doing now. Assange cannot be guilty of treason, since he      
    isn't a U.S. citizen. But he could be guilty of espionage. His best       
    defense will be that he can't be guilty of espionage because the          
    material that was stolen was so trivial.                                  
                                                                              
    I have no idea whether or when he got involved in the acquisition of the  
    material. I do know - given the material leaked so far - that there is    
    little beyond minor embarrassments contained within it. Therefore,        
    Assange's claim that geopolitics has changed is as false as it is bold.   
    Whether he committed any crime, including rape, is something I have no    
    idea about. What he is clearly guilty of is hyperbole. But contrary to    
    what he intended, he did do a service to the United States. New controls  
    will be placed on the kind of low-grade material he published. Secretary  
    of Defense Gates made the following point on this:                        
                                                                              
      \"Now, I've heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy     
      described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think those    
      descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is,         
      governments deal with the United States because it's in their           
      interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not  
      because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments - some       
      governments - deal with us because they fear us, some because they      
      respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as     
      has been said before, the indispensable nation.\"                        
                                                                              
      \"Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S.   
      foreign policy? I think fairly modest.\"                                 
                                                                              
    I don't like to give anyone else the final word, but in this case Robert  
    Gates' view is definitive. One can pretend that WikiLeaks has redefined   
    geopolitics, but it hasn't come close.                                    
                                                                              
    Give us your thoughts                          Read comments on           
    on this report                                 other reports              
                                                                              
    For Publication                                Reader Comments            
                                                                              
    Not For Publication                                                       
                                                                              
    Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by   
    prominently displaying the following sentence at the beginning or end of  
    the report, including the hyperlink to STRATFOR:                          
                                                                              
    \"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR\"                  
    Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us                                
    (c) Copyright 2010 Stratfor. All rights reserved.                         
","2010-12-14 11:10:05",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/942090_geopolitical-weekly-taking-stock-of-wikileaks-.html","noreply@stratfor.com","","duchin@stratfor.com",""
948956,"INSIGHT - MOLDOVA - Part 4 - Future Challenge for Russia in Moldova
","   SOURCE: MD101
   ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in Washington & Chisinau
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Head of Moldovan Lobby in Washington, but lives
   partially in Chisinau & super close to most politicians
   PUBLICATION: yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
   DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
   SOURCE HANDLER: Lauren

   THE FUTURE OF MOLDOVA

   Russia will consolidate Moldova a** no one doubts this. But the question
   is whether Russia can start to influence the new generation.

   The older generation and the people from the countryside of Moldova
   considers themselves Moldovan a** and tied to its old ways and Moscow. But
   the new generation and those in the capital consider themselves either
   pro-Western Moldovan or actually tied to Romanian identity (not the
   country, which is important to distinguish).

   It was this younger generation that rioted last time, but they are only in
   the capital and not the rest of the country. The older generation plus
   anyone in the country highly outnumbers the younger or capital generation.

   Also, the Communists and Voronin are great at literally knocking on the
   doors in the countryside to influence this population.

   Russia just needs to influence the capital/younger population. Russia is
   trying to do this with expanding its ties with non-Communist parties. But
   it hasna**t been successful thus far and needs to really make this its
   next focus after the next election.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer/Beijing Correspondent, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-10-01 04:11:20",1,"2012-03-05 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/948956_insight-moldova-part-4-future-challenge-for-russia-in.html","chris.farnham@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
952814,"Re: INSIGHT - MOLDOVA - Part 3 - Germany, US, Romania, Ukraine
","     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Chris Farnham\" <chris.farnham@stratfor.com>
   To: \"analysts\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 9:10:53 PM
   Subject: INSIGHT - MOLDOVA - Part 3 - Germany, US, Romania, Ukraine

   SOURCE: MD101
   ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in Washington & Chisinau
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Head of Moldovan Lobby in Washington, but lives
   partially in Chisinau & super close to most politicians
   PUBLICATION: yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
   DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
   SOURCE HANDLER: Lauren

   GERMANY

   As far as Germany, Germans have a**historica** ties to having former
   villages and pockets of former population in Moldova. Russia kicked them
   out, so there is a strange resentment between Germany and Russia over
   Moldova.  yeah, this is a huge factor in both Moldova and Romania

   But this isna**t a red-line.

   Instead, it is more about how the Moldova solidification will ripple
   through Central Europe. But Germany can contain Russiaa**s move if it gets
   an answer on Transdniestria. This will allow Germany to say to Europe
   a**see, if we work with Russia, then we can accept your ruling there.
   Germanya**s representative on the issue a** Patricia Flor a** told Russia
   that if Moscow could get a resolution between Transdniestria and Moldova
   started then Germany would be more open to Russia controlling the country.
   Germany also said that if Russia could get a resolution started then the
   rest of the EU would see it as a positive step in security assurances to
   Europe.

   I have this feeling as well. I am wondering what he means by \"Gets an
   answer\"... on what? Just what Russia plans to do in general? Troops
   specifically?

   This basically goes with our initial take that Germany is testing Russia's
   level of commitment and security cooperation. Moldova is not a do or die
   situation for Germany. Germany can survive with Moldova in Russia's hands.
   It has been for the past 20 years anyway.
   UKRAINE, ROMANIA & US

   Ukraine is on board with whatever Russia wants on the Moldova issue,
   moreover it will help Russia with whatever is needed to help consolidate
   the country.

   Romania is simply terrible at influencing the country. Sure it wants to
   hold Moldova from Russia and to its own. But Romania has not done any
   grassroots moves. The US as asked Romania to set up NGOs, media, etca*|.
   it hasna**t. Romania tried after the last election to set up a Moldova
   Fund to invest in the countrya**but it has only given 100 million euros
   thus far a** which is nothing.

   The US has NO ONE interested in the country. Literally, the lobby in
   Washington has no ties in government a** especially Congress, Senate, NSC,
   etc. The only thing is a Moldova desk at State a** which means nothing.
   There is even no USAID to Moldova. Sure MMC gives some money to Moldova,
   but only $262 million.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer/Beijing Correspondent, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-10-01 13:52:39",1,"2012-03-05 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/952814_re-insight-moldova-part-3-germany-us-romania-ukraine-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
953563,"[alpha] INSIGHT - CHINA - Chinese coal imports - WW steel
 Production - (VIA) CN65
","   SOURCE:  CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes, no attribution
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 3
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

     Coal imports into China remain at low level
     After falling to a 23-month low of 6.8 Mt in February, China's coal
     imports in March climbed by 2.3 Mt month-on-month to 9.1 Mt, according
     to latest data from China Customs Statistics. This is, however, still
     6.1 Mt or 40% lower year-on-year, mainly due to unfavourable price
     differentials between domestic and international supplies. Total
     imports in the 1q11 of 32.4 Mt were 11.1 Mt lower than the previous
     quarter, compared with 44.4 Mt in the corresponding period last year.
     Do not forget that China has considerable logistical problems moving her
     domestic coal 'internally' to end users which periodically results in
     her being
     forced to increase imports to maintain supplies to her power stations
     and steel
     mills, which is why China's imports for coal remain 'lumpy'.
     China is fast developing her large Mongolian coal supplies, which I am
     told
     includes cokaing coal, however once again logistic problems 'bottle
     neck'
     the supply chain to end users and as vast as these coal supplies are
     expected to
     be they can only sumpliment her needs, they cannot replace them. As
     China's
     demand for energy (coal fired) and steel production (coking coal)
     increases, Her
     overall demand for imported coal 'on average' can be expected to
     increase.
     Global steel production hit a new record
     World crude steel production rose 7.0% year-on-year to a new monthly
     record of 129.3 Mt in March, according to data from the World Steel
     Association. Total global output in the 1q11 was 371.5 Mt, up 8.8%
     from the year-ago level. Asia contributed 64% of total production in
     the first three months of the year, at 237.3 Mt, with an increase of
     9.1% year-on-year. January-March production in Europe was 6.9% higher
     at 45.6 Mt while the US produced 7.1% more year-on-year.
     This simply emphasises the real problem for steel producers and end
     users.
     The increasing WW demand for iron ore and coking coal continues to
     outpace WW
     ability to physically mine and export it and is the one fact that will
     sustain a
     rising trend in both iron ore and coal prices at the expense of dry bulk
     freight
     which is hugely over supplied as compared to maximum possible exports.

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19
","2011-04-21 16:50:32",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/953563_-alpha-insight-china-chinese-coal-imports-ww-steel.html","ben.preisler@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
955624,"INSIGHT - MOLDOVA - Part II - Transdniestria & Russia
","   SOURCE: MD101
   ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in Washington & Chisinau
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Head of Moldovan Lobby in Washington, but lives
   partially in Chisinau & super close to most politicians
   PUBLICATION: yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
   DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
   SOURCE HANDLER: Lauren

   TRANSDNIESTRIA

   The a**suspensiona** of financial aid and cooperation between banks to
   Transdniestria has three facets. First off, it is only the a**officiala**
   suspension of funds. Russia only recognized that it gave funds officially
   to Transdniestria a few years ago. So the funds will now just be
   unofficial. No one believes that the funds will stop a** especially in
   Transdniestria.

   The next issue is that Russia is sick of the political situation inside of
   Transdniestria surrounding the funds. In February Russia sent a letter to
   President Smirnov to not a**misusea** funds from Russia. Russia knew that
   the funds were being handled by Smirnova**s son, Oleg, who heads the main
   bank in the secessionist republic. Meaning the funds stayed inside the
   Smirnov family and didna**t impact the people in Transdniestria a** so it
   is hard for it to influence the people. So, Russia then did an a**audita**
   of the transfers and found a bunch of discrepancies a** giving them the
   ability to justify the a**officiala** cut-off. Now Russia can funnel the
   funds their own way.

   Lastly, this is a statement for Moldova proper and the region a** as if
   Russia is more interested in Moldova proper instead of Transdniestria.
   This made it look to Moldova proper that Russia was pulling its support
   for Transdniestriaa*| leading the public in Moldova to consider linking to
   Moscow. It is all about influencing the elections.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer/Beijing Correspondent, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-10-01 04:10:28",1,"2012-03-05 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/955624_insight-moldova-part-ii-transdniestria-and-russia-.html","chris.farnham@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
955839,"RE: Labor Day Review of Where We Are
","   Can I get 30 minutes of G's time sometime this week?

    

   From: George Friedman [mailto:friedman@att.blackberry.net]
   Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 3:07 PM
   To: Kevin Stech
   Subject: Re: Labor Day Review of Where We Are

    

   Sure

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Kevin Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>

   Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 15:02:20 -0500 (CDT)

   To: 'George Friedman'<gfriedman@stratfor.com>

   Subject: RE: Labor Day Review of Where We Are

    

   I would like to talk with you about these and other thoughts. Can I have
   Susan schedule something?

    

   From: Kevin Stech [mailto:kevin.stech@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 7:02 PM
   To: George Friedman
   Cc: rbaker@stratfor.com
   Subject: RE: Labor Day Review of Where We Are

    

   George,

    

   There is a part of the company that you did not mention in this missive,
   and that is the research department. There was probably no need to make
   this mention, but I want to make sure a few things are on your radar.

    

   Research is a group that must grow and evolve in step with other changes
   occurring within the company. I've identified several large gaps in our
   capabilities that I plan to help remedy. I have attached a word document
   with my thoughts. Please give them due consideration.

    

   Thank you,

    

   Kevin

    

    

   From: stratforaustin-bounces@stratfor.com
   [mailto:stratforaustin-bounces@stratfor.com] On Behalf Of George Friedman
   Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 14:55
   To: allstratfor
   Subject: Labor Day Review of Where We Are

    

   THIS IS FOR INTERNAL STRATFOR USE ONLY. DO NOT SHARE THIS DOCUMENT OR
   DISCUSS IT OUTSIDE OF STRATFOR.

    

    

    

   I hope you've all had a great Labor Day Weekend. This Labor Day marks a
   turning point in Stratfor's history, and I wanted to share my thoughts
   with you and some plans. It used to be, not so long ago, that we were so
   small that information flowed to all hands by itself.  It is hard for me
   to recognize sometimes that this is no longer true, so I will provide an
   extensive review of where we are and what is coming.  Some of this will be
   old hat to some of you; some of this will be new.  This is an attempt to
   start getting everyone on the same page. 

    

   Historically, Stratfor was unique in a number of ways. First, we accepted
   no advertising. Second, we charged for our subscriptions. Finally, we were
   revenue driven. We build the company from our revenues.  This kept us
   independent, it kept us free to experiment-and at times fail, it kept us
   tight. We were reaching a point where we our revenues did not keep up with
   our needs and market opportunities.

    

   Shea Morenz provided us with two opportunities.  First, he made an
   investment in Stratfor designed to give us the capital needed to build our
   staff and our marketing.  Second, he proposed a new venture, StratCap,
   which would allow us to utilize the intelligence we were gathering about
   the world in a new but related venue-an investment fund. Where we had
   previously advised other hedge funds. We would now have our own, itself
   fully funded by Shea.  Shea invested over $2 million in Stratfor and more
   in StratCap. In return he took a seat on Stratfor's board and a minority
   position in Stratfor, whose control remains in Don's and my hands.  It was
   a good deal for Stratfor, a good deal for StratCap, and since the deal
   closed officially on August 1, we now have the task of doing what we all
   want-building Stratfor and StratCap.

    

   Our cash position is not spectacular by any means, but we have the
   resources to build the kind of company we want, when that investment is
   combined with our revenues.  With cash under control we need to address
   the next problem-people. We all are doing more than our share to keep
   things going.  In some ways that good but it can be overdone, and we are
   overdoing it throughout the company.  Our job now is to expand the team. 
   Money is one element of that, but relieving the pressure we are under in a
   way increases the pressure, because we have to recruit and train new
   people. So it gets harder before it gets easier, and that's the point we
   are at.

    

   Let's divide our departments into two groups.  There are those departments
   that must train their own people, particularly in intelligence beyond the
   normal training needed by new employees.  We do that because no one thinks
   of the world like Stratfor, and that means that we can't hire people from
   other organizations, or at least not without a major training programming,
   which in our experience lasts up to two years.  Then there are departments
   that don't have this burden and that can hire people readily from other
   organizations.  Both groups of departments must grow and train, but the
   burden of training is much heavier in the Intelligence departments that
   train their staff from the bottom up than on other departments.  It is
   important for everyone to understand this distinction.  It is not that
   people in Intelligence are more important or more valuable than those in
   other departments.  It just means they face different problems in growing
   and that if they don't grow, other things can't happen.

    

   Now let's consider the tasks ahead.  First and foremost-and always first
   and foremost-we must be the world's leading private intelligence
   organization (and one of the finest intelligence organizations, period)
   and we must sell our intelligence through publishing.  Our current staff
   has done an outstanding job, but they are thin and sometimes we are weak. 
   We must do better in economics, and we must make certain that no AOR
   depends on only one person. There are lots of things that are needed. 

    

   Second, we are committed to supporting StratCap, a private fund that will
   begin operations some time this coming spring. What StratCap will do is
   use our Stratfor's intelligence and analysis to trade in a range of
   geopolitical instruments, particularly government bonds, currency and the
   like in the world's emerging markets.  Shea Morenz initiated this idea and
   leads it.  At the root of StratCap is a simple idea: Stratfor should put
   its money where its mouth is.  It does not conflict with Stratfor, but is
   an extension of it.

    

   Do not think of StratCap as an outside organization.  It will be integral
   to Stratfor, in the sense that much of the intelligence we are developing
   is useful to Stratcap as well as Stratfor.  The organizational and legal
   distinctions are real and important, but StratCap is linked to Stratfor
   intellectually and contractually.  It will be useful to you if, for the
   sake of convenience, you think of it as another aspect of Stratfor and
   Shea as another executive in Stratfor. 

    

   Let me also add that it is our commitment that all our team will benefit
   if StratCap is successful through some mechanism to be defined. This isn't
   an attempt to get you to work harder for the same money.  But that
   discussion must wait until the legal and administrative relationships of
   StratCap and its relation to Stratfor are worked out and reviewed by
   something called \"compliance officers,\" people who make certain that we do
   not violate any regulations. 

    

   From that point of view, StratCap is something under construction.  You
   can see Shea Morenz hammering away building it in the corner office he
   took from Darryl. In the world of StratCap, corner offices are marketing
   tools.  This points to the fact that StratCap will be building its own
   staff and they come from a different world from Stratfor with a different
   culture.  That said, we have a great deal to learn from StratCap to
   strengthen Stratfor's understanding of economics and it has much to learn
   from us.  We are already working on mock portfolios and trades, testing
   our skills.  Kendra, Korena, Melissa, Jen, Peter, Meredith and myself are
   all involved in this along with Shea and Alfredo, a trader that makes us
   easy to understand compared to him. It's going pretty well in fact, but
   supporting StratCap will be a cultural and intellectual challenge.  It's
   important now to recognize that it is already here, growing and we will
   accommodate to it and it to us.

    

   I want to emphasize is that there is neither a legal, intellectual nor
   moral tension between Stratfor and StratCap.  We will continue to publish
   what we think is true.  StratCap is interested in our broad ideas but
   mostly in the obscure nuggets picked up by intelligence that are usually
   of little interest to our general readers.  My pledge to you and our
   readers is that our publication will remain untouched by StratCap-because
   they are merely different sides of the same coin, intelligence.

    

   We have also been asked to help the United States Marine Corps and other
   government intelligence organizations to teach them how Stratfor does what
   it does, and train them in becoming government Stratfors. We are beginning
   this project by preparing a three-year forecast for the Commandant of the
   Corps.  This is a double honor for us.  First, the professional
   intelligence community is acknowledging us as being the gold standard of
   intelligence.  Second, we are being asked to use our honest and unhedged
   views to support what is for Stratfor-an American company-its homeland. 
   Again, as with StratCap, there is no tension. We will tell the U.S.
   government precisely what we tell our readers and we think ourselves.  Our
   first lesson to the government is that intelligence organizations exist to
   make decision makers uncomfortable, not to make them feel better about
   their decisions. I didn't come this far to compromise on that. 

    

   Add to this that the fact that Turkish Chamber of Commerce (not its name
   but close enough; its name is TUSIAD) asked us to preside over their 40th
   anniversary celebration, and that the Turkish Foreign Minister and Energy
   Minister will speak at the event, and you can see both our global
   recognition and our commitment to speak the same words to every country.
   We can serve the world from the same platform.

    

   So think about it.  We have three triumphs.  First, our publication is now
   read by almost 300,000 people (counting our corporate accounts).  We are a
   major force around the world.  Second, Shea-a guy who has played with the
   big boys at Goldman Sachs, asked us to play in the majors with him. 
   Third, the USMC has asked for our help, and with them others in the
   defense community.  These are three validations of us that are precious to
   me.

    

   Obviously, there is no way in the world that we can do all these
   things-plus the endless little projects that we must do all the time-with
   the staff we have.  And given that we take two years to train new
   analysts, and all of this is on us now-we have an urgent problem.  We
   can't punt opportunities at hand and continue at our current size. Nor can
   we easily expand.  So we will therefore expand with difficulty.  There is
   no choice.  Our Analyst Development Program is the means where we train
   people and find new analysts as well as find some staff for publishing
   (watch officers, monitors, operations center and writers all under Jenna
   Colley). We will have the largest group of ADPs ever this fall, starting
   next week.  About 13 people at last count will be joining us.  This is a
   huge percentage of the number of analysts on staff. Ideally all will work
   out well and our crisis will be over.  That's unlikely but our crisis will
   be mitigated by January 1. Doing this will put a huge burden on
   Intelligence, who must do their work and also train these people, but
   there is no choice.  This is the year when we break out.  I promise to
   work side by side with the team in training and growing he organization. 
   I also promise that if we succeed, we will become one of the most
   significant and prestigious foreign policy publications in the world-and
   those that made it happen will be known.  I know there are questions about
   by-lines. You know my hesitation, but we will figure out together someway
   to make sure that the glory is shared.

    

   Intelligence is divided into three parts.  There is Strategic Intelligence
   (under Rodger assisted by Reva) that is organized geographically.  There
   is Tactical Intelligence (under Stick, assisted by Nate Hughes) that is
   organized thematically-organized crime, cyber-warfare, military,
   terrorism, security, financial flows, supply chain and so on.  There is
   then intelligence gathering, under Meredith, assisted by Jen Richmond that
   is building sources from around the world.  All of them must grow
   dramatically.  The first two will grow mostly out of the ADP pool. The
   latter will be done by extensive work in the field.  But it is the Writers
   Group that is making the most impressive evolution.  Under Jenna (and Tim
   French and Maverick) it has moved into the heart of intelligence, writing
   as well as editing.  Everyone should watch this team. They are pioneering
   things the world hasn't seen yet. Along with Watch Officers, monitors and
   the operations center, this unit is translating intelligence into product
   with increasing effectiveness.  It is now organizationally mature and
   ready to both grow and sustain the growth of Intelligence.

    

   This growth will put a tremendous strain on other departments. Leticia has
   done a tremendous job in Human Resources, but the job has grown much
   greater than she can possibly manage.  Just the process of getting visas
   for new ADPs is overwhelming, and at least half of these come from other
   countries.  We have selected an HR consulting firm to support her in the
   coming months and other solutions will be found to sustain this. HR will
   become more effective in the next months. In addition, we are retaining a
   law firm to create a policy for Stratfor on Foreign Corrupt Practices
   Act.  I don't plan to do the perp walk and I don't want anyone here doing
   it either.  We need some clear guidelines on the law and are getting them,
   particularly as we ramp our intelligence capability. Similarly finance has
   kept us all going and similarly it has to expand, although it is a shade
   less pressured than HR is.

    

   IT faces a huge challenge.  Traditional IT organizations focus on the
   development of new capabilities for a company and sustaining complex
   systems. At Stratfor, the focus must also be on sustaining basic systems
   like phones, email, configuring and fixing laptops and cell phones and so
   on-the basic tools that make our work possible and which are a particular
   challenge in a global company operating 24-7.  That gives our IT
   department a different shape and tempo than exists in other companies.
   With this class of ADPs, 24-7 will become very real.  IT is under pressure
   to maintain its focus on improving the web site and corporate systems but
   has a special and intense mission of supporting a growing, global company
   at the ground level, and the pressure is never going to be greater than
   now with all the new people coming on board in all departments. Creating
   an IT department that fits our peculiar needs will be Frank's challenge.

    

   I want to also point to two departments that are performing extremely
   well.  Customer Service at Stratfor is among the best in the business.  We
   daily get emails praising their work. John Gibbons has done an amazing job
   keeping this going.  More subscribers mean more customer service of
   course.

    

   Also to be mentioned is he on-line marketing team who has just done
   something very impressive. There is usually a slump in subscriptions after
   a Red Alert, and there was one, but in a matter of weeks they pitched in
   and turned it around with some strange and wonderful campaigns.  They have
   broken their forecast in spite of a pretty quiet world.  Its amazing the
   kind of ads that work!

    

   Let's turn to marketing and sales and the future.  Our readership is now
   about 5 percent of the Economist when we exclude corporate (not sure why
   we exclude corporate but that's what we do).  That means that we have
   probably saturated a good part of the early adopters market-the early
   adopters who love us and have built us-and put up with our weaknesses.
   It's kind of like people who supported Apple in its dark days, putting up
   with promising but not yet mature computers.  If you haven't read,
   \"Crossing the Chasm,\" a rare business book that is actually helpful,
   please take a look at it.  It will explain much of what we are trying to
   achieve in marketing.

    

   We have no choice but to grow.  If we stay this size someone larger, with
   deep pockets will notice the market we have created and come in after us. 
   We won't be able to compete.  The only protection is market share, to be
   so dominant a force in the market that no one challenges us and our own
   deep pockets.  For this we must grow revenue and that means readership. 
   The place we must grow is in the mainstream.  I don't mean by mainstream
   CNN. I mean readers who are interested in what we have, but aren't
   fanatics, groupies and wannabes.  These people have higher standards in
   production values, and less forgiveness for mistakes. They don't buy the
   mystique.  They buy the publication. That's where most of our customers
   are and where we have to go.

    

   Obviously this is one of the reasons we need more people.  It is also the
   reason we must deliver in new ways.  Grant Perry and his team are looking
   at ways to create a unique, Stratfor video culture. I see this myself as
   consisting of much longer and serious conversations among analysts
   moderated by an anchor, documentaries, briefings. Perhaps our Sitreps
   should all be delivered via video and audio (there is I think huge demand
   for audio products in cars, or so many people tell me).  All of this will
   evolve in unexpected directions under Grant, Colin, Brian, Andrew and
   others who will join them. This is part of our own evolution into the
   mainstream, on our own terms, with our own voice. What you see above, by
   the way, are simply my own ideas, not fully thought out.  Whatever Grant
   and his team produce will be uniquely Stratfor.

    

   Other than that we shall see.  What markets we will enter, and how we
   enter them is not yet known. We do know that the current Stratfor product,
   however enhanced, will be our only offering.  We will not be developing
   new products for markets. 

    

   We have hired a consultant, Mark Stacey, who will guide this process.  We
   will also be bringing in a consulting firm to do survey research and
   interviews to teach us more about our current readers, readers who won't
   buy us, and readers who would buy us if they had heard of us.  Our choice
   was between hiring staff to give us a plan or hiring consultants to give
   us a plan and then hiring permanent staff to execute it.  The latter is
   the safest-we avoid a staff without the skill to do what we need whom
   instead craft a plan to do what they already know.  In addition to this
   initiative, we are participating in the University of Texas Business
   School program where a team of graduate students will essentially parallel
   the work of our outside consultants, giving us a double check on the
   data. 

    

   The goal here is to have a marketing and sales plan in place for execution
   on January 1.  From where I sit, the biggest challenge we have is that too
   many people have never heard of us.  At a meeting I can encounter someone
   who has subscribed for years and next to him is a person in the same
   industry that has never heard of us.  It is difficult selling to people
   who have never heard of us.  So our challenge-before trying to sell to
   them-is to increase awareness of who we are.  This is called branding and
   it's different from selling.  It is the precursor.  We will start with
   branding in January. That means there will be marketing people around
   asking many questions in the coming months, frequently the same ones.
   Please work with all of them.  In the end, we will have a plan with a high
   likelihood of success.

    

   Parallel to all of this, the executives (without Don, Steve Feldhaus or
   myself-the board members) are going through a planning process of their
   own, coordinated by Frank Ginac.  Not being on it (and not wanting to be
   informed of what is going on as there should be yet another set of eyes on
   things other than mine) I can't tell you what they are doing.  However,
   the deal we have on this is that as CEO, I will proceed with implementing
   my own plans that I've outlined here, and will consider their proposals
   when I see them. If the decision point is past when they make their
   recommendation on a subject, the recommendation will not be considered. 
   If they come in with recommendations before decision points, their
   recommendations will be taken very seriously.  This allows the company to
   move forward and an alternative planning model to be brought on line when
   it is ready.

    

   The company has become too large and complex for any one person to know
   what is going on.  I am moving (with difficulty) from the role of an early
   entrepreneur, knowing everything going on and getting involved in it, to
   the CEO of a company at the inflexion point.   The inflexion point is the
   point all companies dream of and few achieve-when they start really taking
   off.  This is a great point and a dangerous one.  Unless the company
   changes the way it does things, inflexion aborts.  I am trying to change
   what I do.

    

   There are some things that have to remain my responsibility.  Building
   Intelligence and publishing and particularly training new staff are things
   that I should oversee.  Building the intelligence capabilities of the
   company along with Meredith is also my responsibility.  Creating new
   models to support Stratcap and helping to train Stratcap in the
   capabilities of Stratfor is mine. Overseeing our training of the Marine
   Corps is something I want to do.  Kendra will be my deputy for this, but
   this leaves a large load on me.

    

   Along with this, for better or worse, I am the public face of Stratfor. 
   My speeches and travels build the brand, create intelligence
   opportunities, and give me a clearer vision of how the world works.  I
   will be doing a lot of traveling to do these things, and I will combine
   them with the Geopolitical Journeys concept that seems to have hit a
   nerve.  During my travels I will be doing articles, videos and writing a
   book based on those journeys, on the world's borderlands.  Between that
   and making contacts for Stratfor and StratCap, I will be busy.

    

   Along with that load is going to be setting the broad direction of the
   company.  Through long and sometimes painful experience I have learned
   that ultimate responsibility can be delegated but not abandoned.  It's an
   old military principle that applies here. I have a vision for Stratfor and
   while I will delegate, I will not turn over responsibility because I
   can't.

    

   That means that we will need an evolving management structure.  I've asked
   Don who is formally President of Stratfor to join Darryl in both the day
   to day management of the company and in what we still call \"the business
   side.\"  One day we will simply be one company, but right now we are still
   two sides of one company.  Don and Darryl will now manage that side,
   implementing our plans there.  I will not disappear, but become
   intermittent on daily management but deeply focused on intelligence.

    

   One of the other things I must do is prepare a succession plan.  In some
   parts that are well developed, I already have that plan.  In other parts,
   we have to build an organization to have a succession plan.  But it is my
   intention that Stratfor survive me (no, I'm not feeling poorly and can
   still kick your ass).  I want to build this into the world's finest
   intelligence service, private and free to speak its mind.  I see this as
   the most lasting contribution I can make, and I am serious about making
   sure Stratfor goes on.

    

   We are all at the inflexion point where the level of effort temporarily
   soars until new resources are brought on line.  They couldn't have been
   staged in earlier because there weren't resources available.  But now they
   can't wait, because the moment will pass and perhaps never return.  For
   everything there is a \"now.\"  This is now.

    

   I ask only one specific thing of all of you. If you don't understanding
   anything here; if you want to learn more; if something worries you and
   your boss can't clear it up, come directly to me. I will be available
   until the last week of September when I go with others to Turkey.  Please,
   please, please, do not engage in a round of paranoia or speculation based
   on lack of data.  Just set a time to see me and let's discuss it. 
   StratFantasy (a new term) is I really believe the greatest danger to
   success that we have face.

    

   This is a long review, but many have said they'd like to know where we are
   and what we are doing.  This is about as comprehensive as I can get. There
   will be more such reports.  There are no short versions about where we are
   and what we are doing.

    

    

   OH YES-THIS IS FOR INTERNAL STRATFOR USE ONLY. DO NOT SHARE THIS DOCUMENT
   OR DISCUSS IT OUTSIDE OF STRATFOR.

    

   --

   George Friedman

   Founder and CEO

   STRATFOR

   221 West 6th Street

   Suite 400

   Austin, Texas 78701

    

   Phone: 512-744-4319

   Fax: 512-744-4334

    
","2011-09-06 22:59:42",1,"2012-02-29 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/955839_re-labor-day-review-of-where-we-are-.html","","","copeland@stratfor.com",""
956994,"Re: Cat3 for comment - Argentina/China - An intensifying trade spat
","   not as good as China when you compare demand, also have to look at price
   competitiveness
   On May 19, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

     This looks good.  My only thought is Argentina is playing a dangerous
     game that could backfire at negotiations.  China has alternative for soy
     imports.  Argentina doesn't seem to have that many alternatives for
     Chinese exports, or do they?

     Reva Bhalla wrote:

       hah, wow. i got my election dates completely mixed up. thanks for
       comments. will incorporate
       On May 19, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Allison Fedirka wrote:

         Reva Bhalla wrote:

           In a move that is sure to escalate Argentina's ongoing trade spat
           with China, Argentina's Ministry of Tourism and Industry announced
           May 19 that it has imposed new anti-dumping measures on Chinese
           and Indonesian textiles. The new measures impose a 14.28 percent
           duty on Chinese polyester yarn and a 7.52 percent duty on
           Indonesian polyester yarn. In the midst of the global economic
           crisis in 2009, Argentina imposed 18 anti-dumping measures on
           Chinese goods, ranging from steel to pipes to textiles, as Buenos
           Aires watched its balance of trade surplus gradually shrink under
           economic pressures at home and abroad (Argentina reported a trade
           deficit with China of $600 million in the first two months of
           2010.)

           Beijing's retaliation strategy quickly honed in on Argentina's
           soybean product exports to China. On April 1, China issued a
           warning to importers of Argentine soybean oil, claiming that
           Argentina's soybean oil contained unacceptably high traces of
           solvents. Shortly thereafter, China transferred the right to issue
           permits for soy imports to the Ministry of Commerce, where central
           government authorities stopped issuing permits to import Argentine
           soybean oil. While Argentina reportedly supplied China with 77
           percent of its soybean oil in 2009, Argentina's overall market
           share of Chinese soybean imports has fallen from 33 percent in
           2007/08 to 15 percent in 2008/09 due to severe drought conditions
           and the government's ongoing battle with local farmers over the
           state's populist-driven price controls and export tariffs on
           Grains (yes they tax other food products but the big protests were
           related to grains) food products.

           Chinese soybean demand is meanwhile on a steady rise, and the
           Chinese government has been encouraging Chinese firms to search
           for alternative sources of soybean products. Those alternative
           sources are mainly Brazil and  the United States, who already
           export large volumes of soybean to China and have the capacity to
           expand that trade. China is also looking to move up the value
           chain in soybean production and reduce imports of soybean oil by
           expanding its domestic crushing capacity, an endeavor in which US
           firms ADM, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus are heavily invested.
           STRATFOR sources have indicated that the Chinese ban on Argentine
           soybean oil was in part intended to apply pressure on Buenos Aires
           to repeal its anti-dumping measures on Chinese goods, but
           Argentina instead appears to be trying to bolster its own
           bargaining position by imposing fresh duties on Chinese goods
           before an Argentine trade delegation heads to Beijing May 31-June
           1 to try and work these issues out.

           Argentina is likely to struggle in finding alternatives to offset
           the loss in soybean trade with China. Argentine farmers, already
           under heavy financial duress  have shifted to exportable crops
           like soybeans that are not consumed in Argentina (and thus not
           subject to state price controls) in an attempt to turn a profit . 
           Through hefty export taxes, the government has been trying to
           force farmers into producing more essential foods, like wheat,
           that can be produced and consumed at home, but such price-capped
           crops are not profitable for farmers to sell at home. may want to
           state this sentence first, which helps explain the farmers' shift
           to soy (and then in turn the govts reaction to try and get other
           grains produced) At the same time, soybean farmers are also seeing
           their market share reduced abroad due to the state's spats with
           major buyers like China. Since Argentina is currently in harvest
           season, farmers have laid off protests for now in hopes of a more
           profitable export season beginning in June, but the state's
           reprieve from farmer protests could be short-lived may want to
           explain why - farmers can easily return to protests and or decide
           to temporarily not sell/store their grain if govt controls prevent
           them from getting a profit. While Argentina could look to
           alternative soybean importers in the EU, Japan, Mexico and other
           countries to help compensate for a decline in Chinese trade,
           Argentine farmers would be doing so on the spot market, where they
           already face immense trouble in accessing credit due to
           Argentina's prolonged debt crisis and where the price of Argentine
           grains would be less competitive. The continued deterioration of
           the agricultural sector, exacerbated by trade spats like the one
           playing out currently between Beijing and Buenos Aires, is likely
           to be a significant contributor to social unrest in the five-month
           build -up to the Oct. 2011 presidential elections. um, Oct 2011 is
           17 months off.  but can still talk about problems she's facing
           politically and an opposition congress.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director, Stratfor
 US Mobile: (512) 422-9335
 China Mobile: (86) 15801890731
 Email: richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2010-05-19 18:23:39",1,"2012-03-05 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/956994_re-cat3-for-comment-argentina-china-an-intensifying-trade.html","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
958029,"INSIGHTS - RUSSIA - Details on the privatizations (multiple sources)
","   LG: I have been working on this with a slew of sources for months (some of
   it since last year).  The reason it took so long is because I had to cross
   check EVERY piece of intel against 3+ other sources because the amount of
   disinformation was astonishing. Because of this, it is hard to send out
   info separately.

   I have not included all the dirt on each company during such a
   privatization because it is not yet translated, but I'll send all that out
   in the interactive request Sunday.

   CODES & DESCRIPTIONS:
   RU131 a** Kremlin thinktanker on econ & pol
   RU171 a** Russian diplomat
   RU157 a** Russian state thinktanker
   RU138 a** Russian econ analyst
   RU134 a** Kremlin economist
   RU102 a** Deputy in ProsGen
   RU131 a** Kremlin policy analyst
   RU108 a** Kremlin strategist
   RU114 a** Aton Anlayst

   The privatizations are about to open soon with the sale of minority shares
   in a dozen companies. The plan is called the a**New Privatization
   Initiativea** and was created in 2009 (LG: which is when Stratfor first
   heard about ita**see intel from Dec 2009). The privatizations are in 2
   categories called a**companiesa** and a**asset companiesa** with the
   former privatization lasting through 2012 and the latter through 2014.

   The company privatizations (not the assets) are expected to earn the
   Russian government an estimated $29 billion. The company privatizations
   are the first list below. The assetsa**which will be made up of 5,000
   small companies mostly made up of firms and assets picked up during the
   financial crisisa** are expected to earn another $20 billion. The largest
   of these a**asseta** companies are also listed below.  So total, the
   government has the potential to earn is $50 billion by end of 2014

   The one thing that the government is still waiting on is the estimations
   if the privatizations can go forward now or wait until the market is ready
   to handle them. But there are already quite a few large investors ready to
   take on this enormous project.

   The government is expected to use the money to eliminate the countrya**s
   budget deficit by 2014 and give it extra stabilization cash all before the
   elections (both 2011 & 2012). This is key because the confidence in the
   government may be high, but everything needs to be perfect and foolproof
   before the elections. Both Kudrin and the economic ministry are working
   together on the economic side of this. The new Kremlin budget is to rely
   upon internal borrowings and income from the privatization of state
   companies. Russia will rely less on external markets.

   Theoretically the shares are up for grabs from both foreign and domestic
   investors.
   It is publicly unclear how the process will take place, though privately
   we all know it will be via Kremlin a**mutual agreementsa** between the
   bidding companies and the Kremlin. Then the decision will be put through
   parliament a** though this is a non-issue.

   On June 15, 2010, a series of amendments came into effect on the laws
   a**On Privatization of State and Municipal Propertya** (aka, Privatization
   Amendments). The amendments give the Kremlin the ability to a**engage
   foreign and domestic entities to arrange and manage the privatization
   processa** on behalf of the Russian firms. Before the Kremlin had to
   influence the deals unless they owned all the pieces being privatized, now
   they can arrange it all no matter if the actual property belongs to
   certain governmental agencies or ministries, etc.

   Many sources did slyly say that should the government decide to
   nationalize in the future it can, but they cana**t say that right now or
   it would scare investors away ;).

   The privatization scheme is a Kudrin plan that has Medvedev-Putina**s
   blessing. Kudrina**s plan is for a**balancea** (LG: which wea**ve
   discussed a million times). Kudrin knows that he cana**t really fully
   privatize these companies, but can still earn enormous cash for small
   pieces of them. It is the balance between the 90s chaos and the 2003-7
   siloviki nationalizations.

   But many in the Kremlin and these companies are against the move. For
   example, Transneft CEO Tokarev (KGB in Dresden with Putin) is against the
   privatization.

   Once these privatizations are done, Kudrin would like to retire. He is
   exhausted by the entire ordeal, but has to see it through because he is
   one of the only men both Putin and Medvedev trust to tackle such a
   project. Also, he knows his luck is almost up with the Sechin clan, who
   would have had him killed by now if he werena**t personally protected by
   the tandem. Instead Sechina**s crew settled for Kudrina**s team instead.

   The move to first put VTB on the market was a plan pushed by Gref
   (Sberbanka**s chairman). There will be 2 tranches of shares put out of
   VTBa**s. The first tranche will be 10 percent and the second will be for
   25 percent. The top company in the running is US investment fund Texas
   Pacific Group. They have already traveled to Russia and spoken with First
   Deputy Premier Shuvalov about this. The first tranche will sell for $3
   billion a** with VTB valued at $30 billion. Another company interested in
   the next tranche is Merill Lynch.

   **any company planning to sell more than ~10% will do it in multiple
   tranches in order to see if the first part will be successful & give the
   government time to reconsider good or bad.

   **the more strategic companies can not have state shares below 75%

   Company                Government Stake            Stake for Sale       
       Status
   Rosneft                           75.16%                           
   24.16%                Stake size under \"review\"
   Transneft                        78.10%                         3-27.1%   
                   Stake size under \"review\"
   Sovkomflot                    100%                                25%   
   VTB Bank                    85.50%                            24.50%   
   Rosselxozbank                100%                                49%   
   Russian Railways            100%                            34.99%       
               via subsidiary
   Federal Grid Company    79.11%                        28.11%           
           Stake size under \"review\"
   RusHydro                        60.38%                        9.38%   
   United Grain Company    100%                         10- 25%   
   Rosagroleasing                99.90%                         10-24%   
   Rosspirtprom                    100%                          10-25%    
   Sberbank                        60.30%                            9.30%   

   A TASTE OF THE ASSETS FOR SALE a** (these alone are $4b)
   Novorossiisk Seaport a** 20%
   Vanino Seaport a** 55%
   Yenisei River Shipping Company a** 25.5%
   Sakhalin Sea Shipping Company a** 25.5%
   Murmansk Seaport a** 34%
   SG-Trans Moscow a** 100%
   Tuapse Seaport a** 25%
   Volga River Shipping 25.5%
   Murmansk Sea Shipping Company a** 25.5%
   Northwestern Sea Shipping (St. Petes) a** 25.5%
   Koltsova Airport (Ekatrinburg) a** 34.5%
   Tomachevo Airport (Novosibirsk) a** 51%

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-10-08 22:08:52",1,"2012-02-29 12:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/958029_insights-russia-details-on-the-privatizations-multiple.html","reginald.thompson@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
959180,"INSIGHT - MOLDOVA - Part 3 - Germany, US, Romania, Ukraine
","   SOURCE: MD101
   ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in Washington & Chisinau
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Head of Moldovan Lobby in Washington, but lives
   partially in Chisinau & super close to most politicians
   PUBLICATION: yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
   DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
   SOURCE HANDLER: Lauren

   GERMANY

   As far as Germany, Germans have a**historica** ties to having former
   villages and pockets of former population in Moldova. Russia kicked them
   out, so there is a strange resentment between Germany and Russia over
   Moldova.

   But this isna**t a red-line.

   Instead, it is more about how the Moldova solidification will ripple
   through Central Europe. But Germany can contain Russiaa**s move if it gets
   an answer on Transdniestria. This will allow Germany to say to Europe
   a**see, if we work with Russia, then we can accept your ruling there.
   Germanya**s representative on the issue a** Patricia Flor a** told Russia
   that if Moscow could get a resolution between Transdniestria and Moldova
   started then Germany would be more open to Russia controlling the country.
   Germany also said that if Russia could get a resolution started then the
   rest of the EU would see it as a positive step in security assurances to
   Europe.

   UKRAINE, ROMANIA & US

   Ukraine is on board with whatever Russia wants on the Moldova issue,
   moreover it will help Russia with whatever is needed to help consolidate
   the country.

   Romania is simply terrible at influencing the country. Sure it wants to
   hold Moldova from Russia and to its own. But Romania has not done any
   grassroots moves. The US as asked Romania to set up NGOs, media, etca*|.
   it hasna**t. Romania tried after the last election to set up a Moldova
   Fund to invest in the countrya**but it has only given 100 million euros
   thus far a** which is nothing.

   The US has NO ONE interested in the country. Literally, the lobby in
   Washington has no ties in government a** especially Congress, Senate, NSC,
   etc. The only thing is a Moldova desk at State a** which means nothing.
   There is even no USAID to Moldova. Sure MMC gives some money to Moldova,
   but only $262 million.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer/Beijing Correspondent, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-10-01 04:10:53",1,"2012-03-05 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/959180_insight-moldova-part-3-germany-us-romania-ukraine-.html","chris.farnham@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
960134,"RE: ANALYSIS PROPOSAL - 2 - Intelligence on Luzhkov's replacement. 
","   Sounds good. Let's keep it tight.

    

   From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
   On Behalf Of Lauren Goodrich
   Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 2:57 PM
   To: Analyst List
   Subject: ANALYSIS PROPOSAL - 2 - Intelligence on Luzhkov's replacement.

    

   Over the weekend, Russia's ruling party, United Russia submitted a list of
   candidates to President Dmitri Medvedev to fill the position of Mayor of
   Moscow. Our intelligence from Moscow has said that the most likely choice
   to replace Luzhkov will be Deputy Premier Sergei Sobyanin. Of course,
   Russia is fickle with who finally gets the important governmental spots.
   But intelligence has told Stratfor that Sobyanin was a choice by Putin to
   repay Medvedev for finally sacking Luzhkov. He is a great compromise and
   works well with all power circles in the country. He also has a firm hand
   and creative background to start tackling the tough reforms that Moscow
   needs.

   450 words
   can be out now & can run whenever. 

   INTELLIGENCE:

   CODE: RU102
   PUBLICATION: yes
   ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in Prosecutor General's office
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Deputy ProsGen
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
   DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
   HANDLER: Lauren

   Thus far, Sobyanin has the post. He is Putin's boy and everyone knows it.
   But he is on very friendly terms with Medvedev. Medvedev won major points
   with Putin by finally and easily removing Luzhkov. Now Putin has replied
   by putting in one of his loyalists, who is very responsive to Medvedev and
   his group. Sobyanin is also a good choice - he has a strong hand over
   cutting the bullshit in the capital.

   CODE: RU102
   PUBLICATION: yes
   ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in Prosecutor General's office
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Deputy ProsGen
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
   DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
   HANDLER: Lauren

   Luzhkov's ousting was never about Luzhkov - as we all know - it was about
   Baturina and her mob ties. Ousting Luzhkov was the first step. Now it is
   her turn. Criminal investigations from our office into Baturina over her
   company Inteko, its finances, her finances and the OC ties to it are all
   underway. This is going to be a nasty fight.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-10-11 21:07:29",1,"2012-02-29 12:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/960134_re-analysis-proposal-2-intelligence-on-luzhkov-s-replacement.html","scott.stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
963091,"INSIGHT - MOLDOVA - the German-Russian talks on Transdniestria
	viewed in Moldova
","   SOURCE: think tank analyst, close to the current Moldovan ambassador to
   the US
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Source
   PUBLICATION: for background
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: 1/2
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1/2 (it's more his analysis on the matter plus some info
   on EU/Germany knowledge)
   DISTRIBUTION: eurasia, analysts
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Antonia

   Let me know if anything is not understandable - translated from a Romanian
   that was much metaphorical.

   On the EU(Germany)-Russia security cooperation - the Moldovans think in
   geographic terms that are very limited; only few persons that have read a
   bit more on history and geography realizes that Moldova is located in the
   'error margin' of the discussions between Russia and Germany. The problem
   that I'm seeing is not related to the 2 partners but to the fact that the
   US is out of the equation, out of the security discussions in the region
   and particularly out of the discussions on Transnistria. This can't be
   advantageous for Moldova: it is better to have on your side the US and the
   EU and not only the EU. The third party presence in the negotiation
   diminishes the possibility to conclude on something that is against the
   Moldovan interest. In the same time, at a larger scale, the substitution
   or the diminishing in importance of the NATO Council-Russia 'partnership'
   and the fact that more parties are involved in the negotiation process on
   the matter makes it less probable that we see any surprises in the future.
   On the other side, the Russians are saying that Russia must not be
   conditioned on anything before signing the pact on the new security
   architecture on Europe.
   The most important problem for Moldova - in case all the discussions go
   further at the operational level - is the fact that we're not prepared for
   the next step. The Moldovan MFA is not discussing with the president, with
   the parliament, etc. In the same time, I've noticed that the people in
   Bruxelles don't know about the negotiations content between Germany and
   Russia, the EU has given its approval in a 'post factum' manner while the
   Germans don't want to talk about it even if they are the only ones knowing
   anything.

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-10-14 10:17:25",1,"2012-03-05 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/963091_insight-moldova-the-german-russian-talks-on-transdniestria.html","chris.farnham@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
964991,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
","   this dude really gives the impression that Moscow calls the shots in Kiev

   so basically, Med gets pissed b/c Timo is blowing Putin and not him, so he
   whines to Putin and says drop the B and get behind Yanu like me. Putin
   says fine, Yanu gets excited and oversteps his boundaries, and now Putin
   is like fix this shit Med and Med is like okay, but we dont know what Med
   is actually gonna do to slap Yanu around

   so what's the couterargument to this? Does Russia really have this much
   influence over the situation?  this is something we need to address in
   ukraine reassessment

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111

   CODE: UA111
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   HANDLER: Lauren

    

   Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
   But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
   this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
   begin with.

    

   You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
   power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
   Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
   solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
   Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
   easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
   her in trouble and arrested.

    

   But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
   respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
   made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
   deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
   Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
   the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
   military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
   it had been pushing for.

    

   So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
   the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
   to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
   demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.

    

   Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
   to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
   against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
   will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-14 20:55:23",1,"2012-02-28 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/964991_re-alpha-insight-ukraine-moscow-kiev-spat-ua111-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
966303,"INSIGHT - CHINA - RIO ESPIONAGE - CN65 [Analytical & Intelligence
	Comments] RE: Australia,	China: Accusations of Espionage
","So my Aussie intelligence source that I was so worried about because he 
stayed in China incommunicado for over a week decides to get in touch 
with me via STRATFOR!  Ha.  Well anyways, I am resending this as insight 
in case not everyone picks this up.  This is very important and wish 
like hell we woulda got it this morning before I wrote up the CSM.  I 
guess we can always update next week or do a stand-alone piece - thoughts?


SOURCE: CN65
ATTRIBUTION: Former Australian State Senator
SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Source is well-connected politically, militarily 
and economically.  He has become a
private businessman helping foreign companies with M&As
PUBLICATION: Yes
SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
SPECIAL HANDLING: None


>
> Hey Jen,
>
> Just back in Australia, but still only in Perth.  Won't get back to
> Brisbane until 1000 GMT on 10th July.  Happy to take a call after 
> that. You may have missed a related issue on this story.
>
> The day in arrived in China the media announced proposed changes to the
> laws on state secrets.  These include increasing the range of things 
> which
> could constitute revealing or stealing \"state secrets\".  Of course 
> stealing
> them, or deliberately revealing them, can attract a death sentence.  The
> exact details are contained in clippings, which are in my checked 
> luggage. I will get them once I get home.
>
> In my talks, the Chinese officials were turning themselves inside out 
> over
> Chinalco, and the line given in the official media curiously blamed the
> Opposition.  The reason for this is simply that the Government and Rio
> don't want to admit that they got it seriously wrong.  You recall my
> comment on the clipping you showed me?  The problem is that they tried to
> push their bargaining position too hard instead of revising the deal to
> make it more immediately palatable.
>
> Interestingly, the arrests come not just during the protracted iron ore
> negotiations, but on the very weekend that Rio successfully concluded its
> rights issue to replace most of the cash they were to get from 
> Chinalco.  I
> think these guys were really pissed off by that, and wanted to do 
> something
> to lash out at Rio.  Also, they may have figured that arresting these 
> guys
> would lead to a capitulation by Rio at the negotiating table.
>
> Rudd is copping a flogging for failing to say anything at all on the
> matter, even though the Australian has been in the bag for four days.  
> You
> need to see Greg Sheridan's article in the Australian today.  Also, you
> have a fan at the Australian Fin Review, as Stratfor commentary made up
> half the back page in the Chanticleer column there.
>
> I got out of China a week late, and was very worried for myself for a
> week, but all turned out okay.
>
> Hope all is well at your end.
>
> Bill
>
>
> Source: 
> http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090708_australia_china_accusations_espionage 
>
","2009-07-10 05:05:33",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/966303_insight-china-rio-espionage-cn65-analytical-and-intelligence.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
967715,"INSIGHT - MOLDOVA - part 1 - Internal fight & Russia's hand
","   SOURCE: MD101
   ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in Washington & Chisinau
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Head of Moldovan Lobby in Washington, but lives
   partially in Chisinau & super close to most politicians
   PUBLICATION: yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
   DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
   SOURCE HANDLER: Lauren

   INTERNAL FIGHT & RUSSIAa**S HAND

   First off, Russian influence has never left Moldova. Any politician (save
   those who have no real power) never are serious when they say that they
   are willing to go towards the West.

   The coalition could have been popular in the country if they had one more
   year. The coalition started a series of reforms this past year, but they
   wona**t start taking affect until another year from now. But the people
   dona**t care. They want something tangible now.

   So two things happened in the coalition that has broken it apart. First PM
   Filat struck out on his own and began this huge push across the country to
   raise pensions. Sure, this is a good move in the country, but he did it as
   he and his partya**s plan a** not the coalitiona**s. This was the nail in
   the coffin for the so-called pro-European coalition. By the way, this
   coalition was never really pro-European since both Filat and Lupu work
   with the Russians constantly.

   Then Lupu began forming its formal ties back with Russia. Lupu held out in
   the coalition much longer than anyone expected. The problem was that the
   coalition never gave Lupua**s PDM anything a** meaning any position in the
   government. What was the point of Lupua**s PDM staying in the coalition?

   Now the question is who will work with the Communistsa**since they will
   most likely gain 40% of the vote. On a side note, the Communists are
   debating whether their candidate will be Grechanaya or Stratan.

   Lupu use to be Voronina**s right hand in the Communists. Not because he
   actually believes in the Communist Party, but it was an opportunity for
   him to launch himself in the country. Lupu is an opportunist. When he left
   to start his own party, Voronin lost all respect for Lupu and the
   Communists branded him a traitor. But Lupu has solidified the power of his
   party by expanding his ties with Russia a** hence the tie with ER.

   The next possibility is Filat.

   Russia has asked Voronin to throw his weight either behind Lupu or to
   build a coalition with Filat. Voronin refuses to side with Lupu, so the
   most likely outcome is a coalition with Filat.

   Either way though, Russia will have a victory in ousting the Romanian camp
   a** meaning Ghimpua**s group. He is the only really non-Russia friendly
   force. He is Romanian President Basescua**s lapdog. But Ghimpu doesna**t
   have really any support, especially as he tried to blatently tried to
   rally support for the pro-Romanian movement in the country.

   But no matter what, this election is more about solidifying publicly the
   Russian presence in the country, more than Russia a**re-gaininga** the
   country. Russiaa**s presence never left. It is everywhere a** the media,
   the parties, in the countryside, etc.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer/Beijing Correspondent, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-10-01 04:09:55",1,"2012-03-05 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/967715_insight-moldova-part-1-internal-fight-and-russia-s-hand-.html","chris.farnham@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
968422,"Re: Der Spiegel on Iraq War Logs
","   So what is new about that? Abu-G has already been detailed. Besides, what
   is US going to do about Iraqi on Iraqi? 

   On Oct 22, 2010, at 5:52 PM, Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com> wrote:

     Humanitarian-wise the Iraqi prisoner abuse will be one of the big
     issues.  Al-J points out FRAGO 242 and FRAGO 039, fragmentary orders
     that require not reporting or reporting prisoner abuse by Iraqi security
     forces. The above sample from the documents mentions them. 

DET ABUSE SUMMARY

     Date
     May 16 2005, 1115
     Type/Category
     Other/Other
     Location
     Al-Musayab, Babylon (MND-C)
     Coordinates
     32.9061584473, 44.1552238464,
     Summary: This is the first mention of fragmentary order (FRAGO) 242,
     which prohibits US forces from conducting any more than a preliminary
     investigation of alleged detainee abuse, unless coalition forces are
     allegedly involved. (The order can be overridden by higher headquarters,
     but there is little evidence that it was in more than a handful of
     cases.)
     NO COALITION FORCES WERE AWARE OR INVOLVED IN THE ABUSE. IRAQI ON IRAQI
     DETAINEE ABUSE SUMMARY 3 18 MAY 2005

     1. IRAQI ON IRAQI (NO US FORCES PERSONNEL WERE INVOLVED) NOTE: MNCI
     FRAGO 039 DTD 29 APRIL 2005 HAS MODIFIED FRAGO 242 AND NOW REQUIRES
     REPORTS OF IRAQI ON IRAQI ABUSE BE REPORTED THROUGH OPERATIONAL
     CHANNELS. INCIDENTS OF DETAINEE ABUSE COMMITTED BY IRAQI FORCES FALL
     WITH MNF-IS CCIR #8. REPORTING WILL BE MADE USING THE FORMAT ATTACHED TO
     MNCI FRAGO 039. PROVIDED THE INITIAL REPORT CONFIRMS US FORCES WERE NOT
     INVOLVED IN THE DETAINEE ABUSE, NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION WILL BE
     CONDUCTED UNLESS DIRECTED BY HHQ.

     ACTION REQUIRED: INITIAL REPORT FORWARDED TO HHQ. ACTION TAKEN: INITIAL
     REPORTS FOR ALL OF THE INCIDENTS DESCRIBED BELOW ARE ATTACHED AND WILL
     BE FORWARDED TO MNCI.

     A. DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT INVOLVING DETAINEE #0484: DETAINEE #0484,
     [REDACTED], WAS RECEIVED AT RDF KALSU BY GYSGT QUIROZ AT APPROXIMATELY
     0915, 16 MAY 2005. SND WAS TRANSPORTED TO RDF KALSU BY [REDACTED] OF B
     CO. 1-155 INFANTRY FROM FOB ISKANDARIAYAH. SND WAS BROUGHT TO THE RDF
     KALSU WEARING A SLING ON HIS LEFT ARM. SND WAS MEDICALLY EXAMINED BY HM3
     BELIN WHO FOUND SND HAD HIS LEFT ARM HYPER-EXTENDED BY IRAQI POLICE. NO
     COALITION FORCES WERE INVOLVED IN THE INCIDENT. GYSGT QUIROZ REPORTED
     THE INCIDENT TO 1ST LT VARGAS, OIC, RDF KALSU. SND STATED THAT HE WAS
     CAPTURED BY IRAQI POLICE ON 13 MAY 2005 AND TAKEN TO THE MUSAYYIB POLICE
     STATION WHERE HE WAS BEATEN BY IRAQI POLICE.

     B. DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT INVOLVING DETAINEE #0487: DETAINEE #0487,
     FASIL ALI KLAB WAS RECEIVED AT RDF KALSU BY GYSGT QUIROZ AT
     APPROXIMATELY 0915, 16 MAY 2005. SND WAS TRANSPORTED TO RDF KALSU BY SFC
     WILLIAMS OF B CO, 1-155 INFANTRY FROM FOB ISKANDARIAYAH. SND WAS BROUGHT
     TO THE RDF KALSU WITH BRUISES TO HIS BUTTOCKS. SND WAS MEDICALLY
     EXAMINED BY H

     On 10/22/10 5:43 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

       Al Jazeera first video:
       http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/10/20101022202210771944.html
       On 10/22/10 5:40 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         10/22/2010
          
         The WikiLeaks Iraq War Logs
         Greatest Data Leak in US Military History
         http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,724845,00.html

         In the greatest leak in the history of the United States military,
         WikiLeaks plans to publish 391,832 classified documents on the Iraq
         on the Internet. The field reports from soldiers cast a new light on
         the war -- documenting in a unique way how the highly armed American
         military was helpless in the conflict for years. By SPIEGEL Staff

         First there were hundreds of thousands of documents from the
         Afghanistan conflict, and now there are hundreds of thousands from
         the Iraq war. WikiLeaks intends to publish a massive collection of
         internal war logs from the United States military early Saturday
         morning. They include some 391,832 field reports from US soldiers
         from a Pentagon database. Taken together, they represent a kind of
         diary of the Iraq war between 2004 and 2009.

         DER SPIEGEL, the London Guardian and the New York Times have
         analyzed and reviewed the documents together with other media
         sources. As was the case with the around 77,000 Afghanistan war logs
         published by WikiLeaks in July, SPIEGEL has taken every measure
         possible to ensure that lives are not put at risk. This includes
         redacting the names of those individuals who could be targeted for
         revenge or of those places at risk of being targeted for collective
         reprisals. The danger publication of the reports could create for
         informants and soldiers in Iraq is the primary concern of the US
         government, which is currently seeking to take action against
         WikiLeaks.

         \"We deplore WikiLeaks for inducing individuals to break the law,
         leak classified documents,\" the Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff
         Morrell told SPIEGEL (see the box below, \"US Reaction to Iraq War
         Logs,\" for the full statement), \"and then cavalierly share that
         secret information with the world, including our enemies.\"

         US REACTION TO IRAQ WAR LOGS
         Click on the headlines to read the responses to SPIEGEL provided by
         Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell ...
         On the Planned WikiLeaks Publication
         \"We deplore WikiLeaks for inducing individuals to break the law,
         leak classified documents and then cavalierly share that secret
         information with the world, including our enemies. We know terrorist
         organizations have been mining the leaked Afghan documents for
         information to use against us and this Iraq leak is more than four
         times as large. By disclosing such sensitive information, WikiLeaks
         continues to put at risk the lives of our troops, their coalition
         partners and those Iraqis and Afghans working with us. The only
         responsible course of action for WikiLeaks at this point is to
         return the stolen material and expunge it from their websites as
         soon as possible.\"
         On the Episodes Detailed in the Documents
         \"We strongly condemn the unauthorized disclosure of classified
         information and will not comment on these leaked documents other
         than to note that 'significant activities' reports are initial, raw
         observations by tactical units. They are essentially snapshots of
         events, both tragic and mundane, and do not tell the whole story.
         That said, the period covered by these reports has been
         well-chronicled in news stories, books and films and the release of
         these field reports does not bring new understanding to Iraq's
         past.\"

         \"However, it does expose secret information that could make our
         troops even more vulnerable to attack in the future. Just as with
         the leaked Afghan documents, we know our enemies will mine this
         information looking for insights into how we operate, cultivate
         sources, and react in combat situations, even the capability of our
         equipment. This security breach could very well get our troops and
         those they are fighting with killed.\"
         WikiLeaks, the Pentagon argued, continues to put at risk the lives
         of troops, their coalition partners and Iraqis. In addition, Morrell
         added, the reports are \"initial, raw observations by tactical units.
         They are essentially snapshots of events, both tragic and mundane,
         and do not tell the whole story.\" Besides, the Pentagon added, the
         period covered in the reports has already been well-chronicled in
         news stories, books and films.

         A War that Lasted Longer than WWII

         SPIEGEL nevertheless decided to publish the documents because they
         expose additional dimensions to the war. The brief, matter-of-fact
         incident reports offer an unusual perspective on a war that lasted
         longer than World War II.

         They show the everyday aspects of the campaign as US soldiers
         experienced it. The thousands of threat analyses, attack reports and
         arrest records allow a very precise reconstruction of the escalation
         of the sectarian battle between the Shiites and Sunnis, how it
         brutalized Iraqi society and how kidnappings, executions and the
         torture of prisoners became routine practices. The reports also
         provide some evidence that neighboring countries including Syria and
         Iran were involved in the war. SPIEGEL ONLINE will be running a
         series of stories in the coming days shedding additional light on
         aspects of the war, and readers can also browse the complete
         WikiLeaks database in an interactive Iraq map prepared by SPIEGEL
         ONLINE. On Monday, SPIEGEL ONLINE will publish this week's WikiLeaks
         Iraq cover story in English.

         PHOTO GALLERY

             *
             *
             *

         15  Photos
         Photo Gallery: Images of a Bloody War

         The documents included in the WikiLeaks database aren't of the
         highest level of classification -- at most, they are \"secret,\" but
         not \"top secret.\" As such, many of the most sensational events in
         the Iraq war don't make an appearance, including the torture scandal
         at Abu Ghraib. There are other weaknesses, as well -- they are
         one-sided and subjective, unverifiable and, in many cases, were
         produced on the battlefield, making it easier for errors to slip
         through.

         However, they have the cumulative effect of painting a precise
         picture of an asymmetrical war, one in which a superpower equipped
         with state-of-the-art weaponry often stands helpless on the
         battlefield against individual fighting units, as brutal as they are
         nimble. The material shows how the constant state of fear paralyzed
         the world's last remaining superpower. Is the next bomb about to go
         off? Is it around the corner? On the side of the road? Or strapped
         to the body of an insurgent?

         'Bomb Explosion,' 'Under Enemy Fire,' 'Discoveries of Weapons'

         The war logs begin on Jan. 1, 2004, a day on which seven explosions
         were reported between Kirkuk in northern Iraq and Basra in the
         south, and end on Dec. 31, 2009, when three attacks were reported.
         With terms like \"bomb explosion,\" \"under enemy fire\" and
         \"discoveries of weapons,\" the Iraq logs try to make the war fit into
         the rough grid of military terminology. But there is one key
         difference between the Afghanistan war logs and these: The Iraq
         reports are all from a war that had already been officially declared
         as having been won. George W. Bush, the US president and commander
         in chief at the time, declared on May 1, 2003 on the aircraft
         carrier USS Abraham Lincoln that \"major combat operations in Iraq
         have ended.\" The field reports show that his statement proved to be
         untrue for years to come.

         The soldiers' reports sometimes have a very reserved tone -- for
         example, when it comes to the deployments of their fellow soldiers
         who are hunting suspected insurgents, when patrols are ambushed or
         when weapons caches are discovered. They are everyday scenes from a
         war.

         And often the horrors that occurred are hidden in military
         abbreviations. The numbers and letters \"13xAIF KIA,\" for example,
         stand for 13 enemies killed (\"13 anti-Iraqi forces killed in
         action\") -- as happened on July 12, 2007, when US attack helicopters
         became notorious around the world for the \"Collateral Murder\"
         operation in which they fired on innocent Iraqis. The fact that
         something must have gone awry in the mission is clear in the
         classified document because there were also \"2xLN children WIA\" --
         \"3 local national children wounded in action.\"

         But other reports express the extent of the horror of the war more
         clearly. As tensions mount within the Iraqi population starting in
         2004, acts of the greatest cruelty take place. In June 2005, for
         example, the death of six members of a family near Baqouba are
         documented, a typical incident at that time. The killers tied the
         victims' hands behind their back and then cut off their heads,
         laying them next to their corpses on the ground. The nine-year-old
         grandson was forced to die the same way as his grandfather. At
         another point, US soldiers report that a commander with the Shiite
         Mahdi militia killed his wife. She evidently saw him commit an
         \"extra-legal killing\" -- a murder -- and she filmed him doing it on
         a mobile phone.

         The documents show hundreds of thousands of times what can happen to
         a society at war -- how it gradually slips to the point of
         self-destruction and the verge of breakdown. During those years, a
         full-blown civil war between ethnic groups in Iraq was only barely
         prevented.

         INTERACTIVE MAP: THE DEADLY EVENTS OF NOV. 23, 2006
         One Day in Iraq: SPIEGEL ONLINE documents the 70 deadly events of
         Nov. 23, 2006, as they are depicted in the WikiLeaks war logs.
         Murders, executions, attacks -- they show a picture of the brutal
         daily life in a country torn by civil war. Now you can read about a
         day that was just like many others in Iraq -- from the perspective
         of American soldiers. Visit the interactive map ...
         Recently, Bush's successor, Barack Obama, also officially declared
         the end of combat operations. On September 1, Operation Iraqi
         Freedom was replaced by Operation New Dawn. But aside from the
         excessively optimistic terminology, there were no signs of triumph
         to be seen. There were no flag-bedecked aircraft carriers or
         returning veterans being cheered as they marched up Broadway in New
         York.

         President Obama, long an opponent of what he once called a \"dumb
         war,\" pointed out that the war had not only cost many lives, but had
         also come at a high financial cost. \"We spent a trillion dollars at
         war, often financed by borrowing from overseas,\" he said. At the
         very same place where his predecessor had announced the start of the
         war, Obama declared its end in a tone suggesting that a completely
         different, considerably more humble nation had emerged from the
         conflict.

         Devastating Effects

         According to official figures, 3,884 US soldiers died between 2004
         and 2009, an additional 224 soldiers from allied nations, well over
         8,000 members of the Iraqi security forces (reasonably reliable
         figures are missing for 2004) and 92,003 Iraqi civilians whose
         deaths are documented by at least one source. Together, this makes
         more than 104,111 deaths, a figure that approximates the number of
         victims reported dead in these documents, namely 109,032. And
         although this war wasn't nearly as devastating in terms of the sheer
         number of casualties as the Vietnam War, with its 3 million deaths,
         its effects on the standing of the United States in the world have
         been no less devastating.

         One month before the beginning of the invasion, Bush had blustered
         that the overthrow of dictator Saddam Hussein and \"a new regime in
         Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for
         other nations in the region.\" But the military that withdrew after
         seven years of war was a demoralized force that had long since
         ceased to believe in the noble goals of the campaign.

         The documents faithfully reflect this change. In the roughly 400,000
         documents, the word \"democracy\" appears only eight times. The
         \"improvised explosive devices\" which instilled fear in the hearts of
         American soldiers, however, are mentioned 146,895 times.

         Editor's Note: The next issue of DER SPIEGEL is currently in
         production and the magazine's main feature article on the WikiLeaks
         Iraq war logs will be published on SPIEGEL ONLINE International in
         English on Monday.
         --

         Sean Noonan

         Tactical Analyst

         Office: +1 512-279-9479

         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

         www.stratfor.com

       --

       Sean Noonan

       Tactical Analyst

       Office: +1 512-279-9479

       Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

       Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

       www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2010-10-23 00:55:13",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/968422_re-der-spiegel-on-iraq-war-logs-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
970494,"Re: INSIGHT - CHINA - RIO ESPIONAGE - CN65 [Analytical & Intelligence
	Comments] RE: Australia,	China: Accusations of Espionage
","   In this piece he mentions that the Chinese always target a Chinese foreign
   national.  That is what I got from my sources and from all the research we
   did on other cases seems to be exclusively the case.  I did not come
   across one westerner without Chinese decent that was ever implicated in
   such a case.   Chinese is Chinese no matter what your passport says. 

   Matthew Gertken wrote:

     Here's the Greg Sheridan article Jen's source mentions. It isn't
     brilliant or anything, but it pretty well captures the anger in
     Australia right now. And you have to admit, he's got a point. This was a
     really baldfaced move by China and this article is an example of the
     enormous domestic pressure that must be coming to bear on Rudd.

     Big risk in nasty business
     Greg Sheridan, Foreign editor | July 10, 2009
     http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25759154-5013460,00.html

     Article from:  The Australian

     THE arrest and detention in Shanghai of senior Australian Rio Tinto
     executive Stern Hu represents a grave crisis in Australia's relationship
     with China.

     It is a serious miscalculation by Beijing, and threatens to do lasting
     harm to China's interests, not only in Australia, but throughout the
     Western world.

     Rio Tinto is one of the biggest mining companies in the world. Recently
     it has earned the ire of official China (China Inc, as it's sometimes
     described) in two ways.

     It has pulled out of a huge deal in which the wholly Chinese government
     owned Chinalco was going to buy nearly $20 billion of Rio. And it is
     involved in tense negotiations over iron ore prices.

     And now Rio's number two man in China, a Chinese Australian, and three
     of his Chinese employees, are in custody, ludicrously on suspicion of
     espionage and stealing Chinese state secrets.

     Often when the Chinese state is under stress it reverts to Cold War
     rhetoric and indeed Cold War impulses.

     But really, to arrest a senior Rio executive for espionage? In 2009?

     This surely is 30 years out of date.

     These arrests always tend to be of ethnic Chinese, no matter what their
     citizenship, as though Beijing does not recognise the foreign
     nationality of anyone of Chinese blood.

     But if Australian executives cannot have difficult business dealings and
     negotiations in China without being arrested, this is a grievous
     development.

     The story has been reported widely internationally, on various forms of
     media including CNN and Bloomberg.

     Rio is a giant in the mining world. If Chinese authorities capriciously
     detain executives from companies such as Rio, what lessons will the
     international business community draw from this?

     Most of all, however, this is a crisis for the Rudd government. There is
     an air of contempt in the way the Chinese authorities have failed to
     respond to Australian government requests for information and for
     consular access to MrHu until today.

     What does the much touted Australia-China relationship add up to if
     Beijing treats Canberra with such conspicuous discourtesy and
     indifference? Or, more likely, are the Chinese deliberately sending a
     message? If so, it's a chilling message.

     If the Rudd government cannot secure Mr Hu's release within a few days,
     it will be seen as having zero influence with Beijing.

     Kevin Rudd's ambition to be a \"zhengyou\" to China, a good friend who can
     tell even unpleasant truths, will be torn to shreds.

     If the Rudd government cannot resolve this matter quickly, then every
     positive thing it ever says about its relations with Beijing will not be
     worth the hot air they take to say.

     The frequent talk of a special relationship between Australia and China
     will be seen as fatuous sentimentality.

     But the Chinese are risking serious interests as well.

     Their action against Mr Hu greatly strengthens those such as Nationals
     Senate leader Barnaby Joyce who argue against any strategic partnership
     between Australia and China, while China's many apologists in Australia
     will be deeply discredited.

     This nasty business needs to be resolved very quickly.

     Jennifer Richmond wrote:

       So my Aussie intelligence source that I was so worried about because
       he stayed in China incommunicado for over a week decides to get in
       touch with me via STRATFOR!  Ha.  Well anyways, I am resending this as
       insight in case not everyone picks this up.  This is very important
       and wish like hell we woulda got it this morning before I wrote up the
       CSM.  I guess we can always update next week or do a stand-alone piece
       - thoughts?

       SOURCE: CN65
       ATTRIBUTION: Former Australian State Senator
       SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Source is well-connected politically, militarily
       and economically.  He has become a
       private businessman helping foreign companies with M&As
       PUBLICATION: Yes
       SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
       ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
       DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
       SPECIAL HANDLING: None

         Hey Jen,

         Just back in Australia, but still only in Perth.  Won't get back to
         Brisbane until 1000 GMT on 10th July.  Happy to take a call after
         that. You may have missed a related issue on this story.

         The day in arrived in China the media announced proposed changes to
         the
         laws on state secrets.  These include increasing the range of things
         which
         could constitute revealing or stealing \"state secrets\".  Of course
         stealing
         them, or deliberately revealing them, can attract a death sentence. 
         The
         exact details are contained in clippings, which are in my checked
         luggage. I will get them once I get home.

         In my talks, the Chinese officials were turning themselves inside
         out over
         Chinalco, and the line given in the official media curiously blamed
         the
         Opposition.  The reason for this is simply that the Government and
         Rio
         don't want to admit that they got it seriously wrong.  You recall my
         comment on the clipping you showed me?  The problem is that they
         tried to
         push their bargaining position too hard instead of revising the deal
         to
         make it more immediately palatable.

         Interestingly, the arrests come not just during the protracted iron
         ore
         negotiations, but on the very weekend that Rio successfully
         concluded its
         rights issue to replace most of the cash they were to get from
         Chinalco.  I
         think these guys were really pissed off by that, and wanted to do
         something
         to lash out at Rio.  Also, they may have figured that arresting
         these guys
         would lead to a capitulation by Rio at the negotiating table.

         Rudd is copping a flogging for failing to say anything at all on the
         matter, even though the Australian has been in the bag for four
         days.  You
         need to see Greg Sheridan's article in the Australian today.  Also,
         you
         have a fan at the Australian Fin Review, as Stratfor commentary made
         up
         half the back page in the Chanticleer column there.

         I got out of China a week late, and was very worried for myself for
         a
         week, but all turned out okay.

         Hope all is well at your end.

         Bill

         Source:
         http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090708_australia_china_accusations_espionage
","2009-07-10 05:56:18",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/970494_re-insight-china-rio-espionage-cn65-analytical-and.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
970630,"Re: S-weekly for comments - Wikileaks, Lots of Fuss About Nothing
","   very nice. Really glad we're saying this. Thoughts within.

     WikiLeaks, Lots of Fuss About Nothing

      

     On Friday Oct. 22, the organization known as WikiLeaks published a cache
     of 391,832 classified documents on their website. The documents are
     mostly field reports filed by U.S. forces in Iraq from January 2004 to
     December 2009 (the months of May 2004 and March 2009 are somehow missing
     from the cache.) The bulk of the documents (379,565) were classified at
     the secret level with a handful of them being might explain that this is
     lower confidential. The remainder of the documents are unclassified.
     This large batch of documents are believed to have been released by
     Private First Class Bradley Manning, who was arrested in May 2010 by the
     U.S. Army's Criminal Investigations Command and charged with
     transferring thousands of classified documents onto his personal
     computer and then transmitting them to an unauthorized person. Manning
     is also believed to have been the source of the classified material
     [link http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100726_wikileaks_and_afghan_war ]
     released by WikiLeaks pertaining to the war in Afghanistan in July
     2010. 

      

     Like the Afghan war documents, WikiLeaks released the Iraq documents to
     a number of news outlets for analysis several weeks in advance. These
     news organizations included the New York Times, Der Spiegel, The
     Guardian and al Jazeera, and they each released special reports and
     websites to coincide with the formal release of the documents to the
     public by WikiLeaks.   

      

     Due to its investigation of Manning, the U.S. government also had a
     pretty good idea of what the material was before it was released and had
     formed a special task force to review the material for sensitive and
     potentially damaging information prior to the release. The Pentagon has
     denounced the release of the information, which it views as a crime, has
     demanded the return of its stolen property might make it clear how
     absurd this is a.) because it is electronic data and b.) after it has
     been released in electronic form on the internet, and has warned that
     the documents place Iraqis at risk for retaliation and also place the
     lives of U.S. troops at risk from terrorist groups who are mining the
     documents for tidbits of operational information than can be exploited
     to conduct attacks.

      

     When one takes a careful look at the classified documents released by
     WikiLeaks, it becomes quickly apparent that they have revealed very few
     true secrets. Indeed the main points being emphasized by al Jazeera and
     the other media outlets after all the intense research they conducted
     before the public release of the documents seem to highlight a number of
     issues that were well-known and well-chronicled for years prior to the
     release:  The U.S. knew the Iraqi government was torturing its own
     people; many civilians were killed during the six years the documents
     covered; sectarian? death squads were operating inside Iraq; and, the
     Iranian government was funding  Shiite militias. None of this is news.
     But, when one takes a step back from the documents themselves and looks
     at the larger picture, there are some other very interesting issues that
     have been raised by the release of these documents, and the reaction to
     the release. 

      

     The Documents

      

     The documents released in this cache of classified documents were taken
     from the U.S. government's Secret Internet Protocol Router Network
     (SIPRNet) a network that is used to distribute classified but not
     particularly sensitive information.  SIPRNet is only authorized for the
     transmission of information up to the secret level. It cannot be used
     for top secret or more closely guarded intelligence that is classified
     at the Secret level. The regulations by which information is classified
     by the U.S. government are outlined in Executive Order 13526. Under that
     order, secret is the second-highest level of classification and applies
     to information that, if released, would be reasonable expected to cause
     serious damage to U.S. national security.

      

     Due to the nature of SIPRNet, most of the information that was
     downloaded from it and sent to WikiLeaks was raw field reports from the
     U.S. troops in Iraq. These reports discussed things the units
     encountered, such as IED attacks, ambushes, the bodies of murdered
     civilians, friendly fire incidents, traffic accidents, etc.  For the
     most part they were raw information reports and not vetted, processed
     intelligence. The documents also did not contain reports that were the
     result of intelligence collection operations, and therefore did not
     reveal sensitive intelligence sources and methods.

      

     To provide a sense of the material involved, we will choose two of the
     reports randomly. The first report we encounter is a report classified
     at the secret level from an Military Police company reporting that the
     Iraqi Police found a dead body that had been executed in a village with
     a redacted name on Oct. 28, 2006. In another secret-level report we see
     that on January 1, 2004, the Iraqi police called a military police unit
     in Baghdad to report that an improvised explosive device had detonated
     and that there was another suspicious object found at the scene. The
     military police unit responded, confirmed the presence of the suspicious
     object and then called an explosive ordnance disposal unit which
     responded to the site and destroyed the second IED.  Now, while it may
     have been justified to classify such reports at the secret level at the
     time they were written under provisions designed to protect information
     pertaining to military operations, clearly, the release of these two
     reports in Oct. 2010 has not caused any serious damage to U.S. national
     security.

      

     Another factor to consider when reading raw information reports from the
     field is that while they offer a degree of granular detail that cannot
     be found in higher level intelligence analysis, they can often be
     misleading or otherwise erroneous.  As anyone who has ever interviewed a
     witness can tell you, in a stressful situation people often miss or
     misinterpret important factual details. That's just how most people are
     wired.  This situation can be compounded when a witness is placed in a
     completely alien culture. This is not to say that all these reports are
     flawed, but just to note the fact that that raw information reports must
     often be double-checked and vetted before they can be used in creating a
     reliable estimate of the situation on the battlefield, and the readers
     of these documents obviously will not have the ability to conduct that
     type of follow-up.

      

     Few True Secrets

      

     In reality, there are very few true secrets in the cache of documents
     released by WikiLeaks, and by true secrets we mean things that would
     cause serious damage to national security. And no, we are not about to
     point out the things that we believe to be truly damaging. However, it
     is important to understand up front that something that causes
     embarrassment and discomfort to a specific administration or agency does
     not necessarily cause damage to national security. and can actually
     serve to expose flaws (sometimes things are classified within the system
     precisely because they are embarrasing)

      

     As to the charges that the documents are being mined by terrorist groups
     for information that can be used in attacks against U.S. troops deployed
     overseas, this is undoubtedly true. It would be foolish for the Taliban
     the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) and other militant groups not to read
     the documents and attempt to benefit from them. However, there are very
     few things noted in these reports pertaining to the tactics, techniques
     and procedures (TTP) used by U.S. forces that could not be learned by
     simply observing combat operations -and the Taliban and ISI have been
     carefully studying U.S. TTP every hour of every day for many years now.
     These documents are far less valuable than years of careful, direct
     observation and regular, first-hand interaction.

     This is a really valuable point you don't see being made elsewhere.
     Might be valuable to expand into another graph and really emphasize here
     -- particularly how absurd the idea is that combatants that have been
     intensely engaged with us for the better part of a decade are really
     going to learn anything operationally useful from after-action reports
     -- or perhaps even that some U.S. report about an informant at that low
     of a level would reveal something new to the Taliban, which has a far
     greater local situational awareness of who talks to the U.S. and what
     they said than anyone doing reporting at the secret level does.

      

     This is not to say that the alleged actions of Manning were somehow
     justified. From the statements released by the government in connection
     with the case, Manning knew the information was classified and needed to
     be protected. He also appeared to know that his actions were illegal and
     could land him in trouble. 

      

     This is also not a justification for the actions of Wikipedia and the
     media outlets who are exploiting and profiting from the release of this
     information. However, what we are saying is that the hype surrounding
     the release is just that. There were a lot of classified documents
     released, but very few of them contained information that would truly
     shed new light on the actions of U.S. troops in Iraq or their allies or
     cause damage to the national security of the United States. While the
     amount of information released in this case was huge, it was clearly far
     less damaging than the information released by convicted spies such as
     Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames - information that crippled intelligence
     operations and directly resulted in the murder of Americans and American
     sources?.

      

     Culture of Classification

      

     Perhaps one of the most interesting facets of the WikiLeaks case is that
     is serves to highlight the culture of classification
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/i_could_tell_you_id_have_kill_you_cult_classification_intelligence
     that is so pervasive inside the U.S. government.  Only 204 of the
     391,832 documents were classified at the confidential level, while
     379,565 of them were classified at the secret level. This highlights the
     propensity of the U.S. government culture to classify documents at the
     highest possible classification, rather than at the lowest level truly
     required to protect said information. More is better.  

      

     Furthermore, while much of this material may have been somewhat
     sensitive at the time it was reported, most of that sensitivity has been
     lost over time, and many of the documents, like the two reports
     referenced above,  certainly no longer need to be classified.  EO 13256
     provides the ability for classifying agencies to set dates for materials
     to be declassified, and  indeed, according to the EO a date for
     declassification is supposed to be set every time a document is
     classified. But in practice, such declassification provisions are rarely
     used and most people just expect the documents to remain classified for
     the entire authorized period, which is 10 years in most cases and 25
     years when dealing with sensitive topics such as intelligence sources
     and methods or nuclear weapons.

      

     This culture of classification tends to creates so much classified
     material that it then becomes very difficult for government employees
     and security managers to determine what is really sensitive and what
     truly needs to be protected.  It also tends to reinforce the belief
     among government employees that knowledge is power and that one can
     become powerful by having access to information and denying that access
     to others. This belief then can often contribute to the bureaucratic
     jealously that results in the failure to share intelligence - a practice
     that was criticized so heavily in the 9/11 Commission Report.

      

     One of the things that will be important to watch in the wake of the
     WikiLeaks cases is how those who are a part of the culture of
     classification react to these events. Some U.S. government agencies,
     such as the FBI have bridled under the post 9/11 era mandates to share
     their information more widely and have been trying to scale back their
     sharing. As anyone who has dealt with the FBI can attest, they tend to
     be a semi-permeable membrane when it comes to the flow of information.
     Intelligence only flows one way - in -- and does not flow back out. But
     the FBI is certainly not alone. There are many organizations which are
     very hesitant to share information with other government agencies, even
     when those agencies have a legitimate need-to-know. they also guard
     their information closely for precisely this reason -- they don't think
     others properly vet or have the proper procedures in place to safeguard
     their information. so the default is not to share.

      

     Although the WikiLeaks case did not result in the disclosure of FBI or
     CIA information, and did not even shed much light on the DOD's
     intelligence collection activities, there are certainly people and
     organizations in the U.S. government who will attempt to use the case as
     bureaucratic justification for continuing to classify information at the
     highest possible levels and for controlling the access to the
     intelligence they generate even more stringently i.e. sharing it with
     less people.
     would conclude along these lines: this wikileaks business is partially a
     symptom of the utter overloading of the classification system with every
     possible piece of information when it serves no value to classify it.
     That overloading and overclassification actually weakens the system (as
     we saw with manning) and thereby endangers (though not directly in this
     case) the stuff the system exists to protect.
     The problem is not wait and see. We know the answer. The
     bureaucracy(ies) will treat the symptom with further classification,
     further restrictions on information sharing and further curtailment of
     accessibility to the lowest levels of classification. These are all
     exactly the opposite things they should be doing. So the ultimate damage
     that manning did was to strengthen a system that was already broken.
     That's the real irony.

      

      

     Scott Stewart

     STRATFOR

     Office: 814 967 4046

     Cell: 814 573 8297

     scott.stewart@stratfor.com

     www.stratfor.com
","2010-10-27 00:07:52",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/970630_re-s-weekly-for-comments-wikileaks-lots-of-fuss-about.html","hughes@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
971109,"Re: INSIGHT - BRAZIL - On military purchases
","   there was a lengthy Economist article just recently about how a German
   industrial giant (maybe Siemens) had really turned around after years of
   corrupt practices. It is one thing to make it illegal, it is another to
   actually clean house and end the practices. So the French may be further
   behind the curve on the latter -- also, they're getting desperate on the
   Rafale, since they're going to have to start shutting down the line
   eventually...

   On 10/18/2010 11:08 AM, Marko Papic wrote:

     PUBLICATION: If needed
     SOURCE: US505
     ATTRIBUTION: U.S. officials in Brazil
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: FSO stationed in Rio, in charge of econ cooperation
     SOURCE  Reliability : A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY:
     DISTRIBUTION: Secure
     SPECIAL HANDLING: Marko

     Asked a good source of mine in Rio what he thought about our internal
     discussion on Brazil and its military purchases. This was a phone
     conversation from Sunday, so I am going from memory on a lot of this.
     This was his answer:

     You are correct to be asking yourself what in God's name Brasilia is
     doing. Look, Brazilian navy is shit. It is a joke, and I would know
     because I talk to our military personnel at the consulate all the time
     about this. That they went for nuclear subs makes no sense. In fact, the
     fact they want the Rafale's and Gripen's is a joke too. The F-18 is the
     best piece of hardware. We even gave them as much tech transfer as we
     give anyone, short of the Israelis. We literally gave them a package
     that said \"you get everything, shade under the Israeli deal.\" It is a
     great deal and anyone would love to have it. Instead they're looking at
     the Rafale, which is overpriced even with price cuts, and the Gripen
     which is just shit. You purchase Gripen's if you're Slovakia.

     Our thinking, and we are pretty unified on this view, here at the
     Consulate and in the wider diplo community is that there are some
     serious kick backs going on. Brazil is an astonishingly corrupt country.
     However, our Treasury Department forbids us to pad their wallets the way
     the French can. That really is it. Remember that deal in Pakistan that
     led to the deaths of a bunch of French officials? Guess what that was
     about? Sale of three French submarines for $1 billion. The French
     supposedly had a kick back deal with Pakistan, which is why Pakistan
     bought the subs in the first place. [MP: later the French reneged on
     paying the kickback, which -- the theory goes -- resulted in the deaths
     of French engineers in 2002].

     I can't prove anything, and don't quote me on this, but the purchase of
     the submarines is so singularly stupid that it has to be part of some
     kickbacks. Lula is probably looking for retirement money. And look, the
     purchase came interestingly close to the end of his term. Same with the
     jets. Our Treasury Department is really vindictive on bribes. We can't
     do any real business because of it in a corrupt place like Brazil. The
     French have no such problems [MP: not saying I disagree, but I believe
     the French have also made bribing illegal].

     So I am sorry that I can't give you some grand explanation that talks of
     Brazil's grand strategy. It is our assessment that this is purely about
     bribes and the French using strategies they have applied in the past
     here in Brazil. The only difference is that Brazil now has money, lots
     of it, so it can do this stuff. I mean is it a coincidence that they are
     buying so much French stuff? The French know how to bribe.

     --

     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

     Marko Papic

     Geopol Analyst - Eurasia

     STRATFOR

     700 Lavaca Street - 900

     Austin, Texas

     78701 USA

     P: + 1-512-744-4094

     marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-10-18 17:14:03",1,"2012-02-27 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/971109_re-insight-brazil-on-military-purchases-.html","hughes@stratfor.com","","marko.papic@stratfor.com,secure@stratfor.com",""
973892,"INSIGHT - CN65 Re: [OS] CHINA/ENERGY - Coal-powered energy consumption
	to decrease in Q4: NEA
","   In response to this article.

   SOURCE: CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator.  Source is 
   well-connected politically, militarily and economically.  He has become a
   private businessman helping foreign companies with M&As
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2/3
   DISTRIBUTION: East Asia
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen
   I don't believe it at all.  They say this stuff all the time, just as they
   say that they are going to be self-sufficient in coal this year!
   But they are still building coal fired power plants fast than they are
   putting them out of commission.  Usually these comments are made with the
   intention to try to influence commodity prices.  Consider the statements
   they have made about iron ore consumption.

     -------- Original Message --------

      Subject: [OS] CHINA/ENERGY - Coal-powered energy consumption to         
               decrease in Q4: NEA                                            
         Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:47:44 -0500                                
         From: Clint Richards <clint.richards@stratfor.com>                   
     Reply-To: The OS List <os@stratfor.com>                                  
           To: The OS List <os@stratfor.com>                                  

     Coal-powered energy consumption to decrease in Q4: NEA

     http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/greenchina/2010-10/27/content_11465639.htm

     2010-10-27 14
       
     China's demand for coal-powered energy is expected to drop in the fourth
     quarter. But China's energy authorities say diesel and petrol
     consumption will remain high.

     The National Energy Administration, the energy sector's governing body,
     believes the government's efforts to cut emissions will bear fruit in
     the fourth quarter.

     Wang Siqiang, an official at National Energy Administration, says demand
     for coal will cool. That's due to the slower growth of the industry.

     Wang also says the annual net import of coal is expected to increase by
     16 percent from a year ago.

     \"We predict that the demand and supply of coal will be largely balanced
     in the fourth quarter, and supply is relatively abundant,\" said Wang
     Siqiang

     Wang also says investment in power plants will remain relatively strong,
     with the whole year's newly built installed capacity expected to reach
     90 million kilowatts.

     He says some regions in the Southwest and Central China will experience
     a crunch in hydro-power supply, due to lower water volumes in some
     rivers during the winter season.

     According to Wang, the supply of processed oil will be sufficient in the
     last quarter of this year, with demand continuing its growth trend.

     Diesel fuel consumption is forecast to retain growth, as industrial
     manufacturing and construction engineering enter peak season.

     Petrol consumption is also expected to experience a boom, with
     burgeoning car sales.
","2010-10-28 03:18:20",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/973892_insight-cn65-re-os-china-energy-coal-powered-energy.html","michael.wilson@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
976931,"Re: INSIGHT - CHINA/AUSTRALIA - General observations and Sino-Oz
	relations	- CN65
","   probably two things

   1) capital flight - into things like bonds, real estate and such --
   non-FDI investments -- most of this is probably NOT from the major
   corps/state

   2) resource acquisition - one of the nice things about china's financial
   model is that there is little return for making a profit, so spending $4
   billion for a $2 billion asset is considered a-ok

   there can obviously be overlap as anything that is a 2) is certainly
   considered a reliable hard asset that is out of the country

   On 9/28/2010 9:02 AM, Antonia Colibasanu wrote:

     In response to some of Matt's queries.  We were talking the other day
     and he noted that the Chinese seemed to be investing in anything and
     everything.  We had a lively discussion on whether or not this was an
     indication of capital flight.  He thought it wasn't this as much as it
     was the attempt to put the money in a place far away from government
     control.  But he did concede that there could be some element of capital
     flight insofar as there was nothing with high ROI in China.  Although he
     argues that there are plenty of projects to invest in in China, but it
     isn't about opportunity as much as it is ROI.  To that though he pointed
     out that the Chinese really weren't all that interested in ROI in their
     overseas investments either, although it was a nice bene.  We have
     argued in the past that their primary concern is supply-line security,
     which I think is still correct, but they are investing in projects in
     Australia recently that the source argues does not do much to secure
     supply-lines.  At any rate, this is a bit of an extension of this
     conversation in relation to Matt's recent questions.  Sources responses
     are in red.

     SOURCE: CN65
     ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
     natural resources
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator.  Source is 
     well-connected politically, militarily and economically.  He has become
     a
     private businessman helping foreign companies with M&As
     PUBLICATION: Yes but with no attribution
     SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: 3/4
     DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

       So there are a couple of things that we are watching.  China's foreign
       policy seems to have become considerably more feisty in the past year,
       and there are basically two theories for explaining this behavior: a
       centralized theory (in which more assertive foreign policy is being
       generated at the top central leadership) and a de-centralized theory
       (in which Hu Jintao and the central leaders are seen as weak, and
       powerful forces within China are each pushing their own interests
       internationally). In the latter theory we hypothesize that there are
       different elements within the Chinese system (such as different
       ministries, outward-looking SOEs, and the PLA) pushing their
       interests, leading to more assertive behavior on several fronts, but
       that these are relatively uncoordinated and not necessarily following
       orders from the central leadership.

       What are your thoughts?  This touches on our last convo of the varied
       companies that are combing Oz for investments.  Any more thoughts on
       this appreciated. 

     I'm noting an interesting trend in that there are fewer big investments,
     and more \"non-traditional\" investments, such as real estate.  I describe
     these as non-traditional, in that most investment has, hitherto, been
     aimed at achieving resource security or resource sovereignty (the
     Chinese have never been good at distinguishing the difference).  Now,
     the investments seem very different, and are aimed at things which are
     simply financial.  The question is why are they doing this?
     I think it is decentralised, and based on the objectives of the elite in
     control of state owned companies.  If this is so, it leaves serious
     doubts about the authority of the NDRC, which is supposed to vet
     outbound investment.  The alternative is that NDRC remains strong, but
     that this investment is made with hard currency that never came onshore.
      I specialised in washing this sort of money in Latin America 20 years
     ago, and there are lots of ways of doing it.

       On a similar note, what do you think about the progress and
       limitations of Sino-Australian defense ties, especially in regards to
       China's seemingly new assertiveness mentioned above?  Is there any
       coordination with the Americans when Australia holds talks with
       Chinese military and defense officials?  How do the Australians
       perceive and plan to respond to the increasingly active Chinese
       foreign policy in the Pacific islands? 

     Generally Australia takes a dim view of others messing around in our
     backyard, even the New Zealanders.  You can guess the attitude to China.
      I don't know about talking to the Americans.  The PLAN thing was noted
     last week, but there have been various exercises with them, and these
     make sense to an extent, since we have a shared interest in protecting
     seaborne trade between the two countries, especially ships passing
     through the Malacca Straits.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 richmond@stratfor.com
 (512) 744-4300 X4105
 www.stratfor.com
","2010-09-28 16:43:59",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/976931_re-insight-china-australia-general-observations-and-sino-oz.html","zeihan@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
976964,"Re: S-weekly for comments - Wikileaks, Lots of Fuss About Nothing
","   Good piece.  A few comments below.  Also, I think people are going to be
   wondering why a private first class who obviously wasn't trustworthy would
   be in the position to read these files.  You address it, essentially, by
   inferring that this information is not all that sensitive; however, it
   would be nice to see a sentence on the matter (that would presumably say
   that shit happens). 

   scott stewart wrote:

     WikiLeaks, Lots of Fuss About Nothing

      

     On Friday Oct. 22, the organization known as WikiLeaks published a cache
     of 391,832 classified documents on their website. The documents are
     mostly field reports filed by U.S. forces in Iraq from January 2004 to
     December 2009 (the months of May 2004 and March 2009 are somehow missing
     from the cache.) The bulk of the documents (379,565) were classified at
     the secret level with a handful of them being confidential. I don't
     think most ppl know the difference between secret and confidential.  The
     remainder of the documents are unclassified. This large batch of
     documents are believed to have been released by Private First Class
     Bradley Manning, who was arrested in May 2010 by the U.S. Army's
     Criminal Investigations Command and charged with transferring thousands
     of classified documents onto his personal computer and then transmitting
     them to an unauthorized person. Manning is also believed to have been
     the source of the classified material [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100726_wikileaks_and_afghan_war ]
     released by WikiLeaks pertaining to the war in Afghanistan in July
     2010. 

      

     Like the Afghan war documents, WikiLeaks released the Iraq documents to
     a number of news outlets for analysis several weeks in advance. These
     news organizations included the New York Times, Der Spiegel, The
     Guardian and al Jazeera, and they each released special reports and
     websites to coincide with the formal release of the documents to the
     public by WikiLeaks.   

      

     Due to its investigation of Manning, the U.S. government also had a
     pretty good idea of what the material was before it was released and had
     formed a special task force to review the material for sensitive and
     potentially damaging information prior to the release. The Pentagon has
     denounced the release of the information, which it views as a crime, has
     demanded the return of its stolen property, and has warned that the
     documents place Iraqis at risk for retaliation and also place the lives
     of U.S. troops at risk from terrorist groups who are mining the
     documents for tidbits of operational information than can be exploited
     to conduct attacks.

      

     When one takes a careful look at the classified documents released by
     WikiLeaks, it becomes quickly apparent that they have revealed very few
     true secrets. Indeed the main points being emphasized by al Jazeera and
     the other media outlets after all the intense research they conducted
     before the public release of the documents seem to highlight a number of
     issues that were well-known and well-chronicled for years prior to the
     release:  The U.S. knew the Iraqi government was torturing its own
     people; many civilians were killed during the six years the documents
     covered; death squads were operating inside Iraq; and, the Iranian
     government was funding  Shiite militias. None of this is news. But, when
     one takes a step back from the documents themselves and looks at the
     larger picture, there are some other very interesting issues that have
     been raised by the release of these documents, and the reaction to the
     release. 

      

     The Documents

      

     The documents released in this cache of classified documents were taken
     from the U.S. government's Secret Internet Protocol Router Network
     (SIPRNet) a network that is used to distribute classified but not
     particularly sensitive information.  SIPRNet is only authorized for the
     transmission of information up to the secret level. It cannot be used
     for top secret or more closely guarded intelligence that is classified
     at the Secret level. The regulations by which information is classified
     by the U.S. government are outlined in Executive Order 13526. Under that
     order, secret is the second-highest level of classification and applies
     to information that, if released, would be reasonable expected to cause
     serious damage to U.S. national security.

      

     Due to the nature of SIPRNet, most of the information that was
     downloaded from it and sent to WikiLeaks was raw field reports from the
     U.S. troops in Iraq. These reports discussed things the units
     encountered, such as IED attacks, ambushes, the bodies of murdered
     civilians, friendly fire incidents, traffic accidents, etc.  For the
     most part they were raw information reports and not vetted, processed
     intelligence. The documents also did not contain reports that were the
     result of intelligence collection operations, and therefore did not
     reveal sensitive intelligence sources and methods.

      

     To provide a sense of the material involved, we will choose two of the
     reports randomly. The first report we encounter is a report classified
     at the secret level from an Military Police company reporting that the
     Iraqi Police found a dead body that had been executed in a village with
     a redacted name on Oct. 28, 2006. In another secret-level report we see
     that on January 1, 2004, the Iraqi police called a US military police
     unit in Baghdad to report that an improvised explosive device had
     detonated and that there was another suspicious object found at the
     scene. The military police unit responded, confirmed the presence of the
     suspicious object and then called an explosive ordnance disposal unit
     which responded to the site and destroyed the second IED.  Now, while it
     may have been justified to classify such reports at the secret level at
     the time they were written under provisions designed to protect
     information pertaining to military operations, clearly, the release of
     these two reports in Oct. 2010 has not caused any serious damage to U.S.
     national security.

      

     Another factor to consider when reading raw information reports from the
     field is that while they offer a degree of granular detail that cannot
     be found in higher level intelligence analysis, they can often be
     misleading or otherwise erroneous.  As anyone who has ever interviewed a
     witness can tell you, in a stressful situation people often miss or
     misinterpret important factual details. That's just how most people are
     wired.  This situation can be compounded when a witness is placed in a
     completely alien culture. This is not to say that all these reports are
     flawed, but just to note the fact that that raw information reports must
     often be double-checked and vetted before they can be used in creating a
     reliable estimate of the situation on the battlefield, and the readers
     of these documents obviously will not have the ability to conduct that
     type of follow-up. There's also a selection bias.  It is not necessary
     to mention, but a view of the on-the-ground situation is going to be
     tainted by the fact that people don't report seeing butterflys and
     double rainbows.  If someone wants to know what life was/is like for
     soldiers in Iraq these are only part of the picture.

      

     Few True Secrets

      

     In reality, there are very few true secrets in the cache of documents
     released by WikiLeaks, and by true secrets we mean things that would
     cause serious damage to national security. And no, we are not about to
     point out the things that we believe to be truly damaging. However, it
     is important to understand up front that something that causes
     embarrassment and discomfort does not necessarily cause damage to
     national security.

      

     As to the charges that the documents are being mined by terrorist groups
     for information that can be used in attacks against U.S. troops deployed
     overseas, this is undoubtedly true. It would be foolish for the Taliban
     the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) and other militant groups not to read
     the documents and attempt to benefit from them. However, there are very
     few things noted in these reports pertaining to the tactics, techniques
     and procedures (TTP) used by U.S. forces that could not be learned by
     simply observing combat operations -and the Taliban and ISI have been
     carefully studying U.S. TTP every hour of every day for many years now.
     These documents are far less valuable than years of careful observation.

      

     This is not to say that the alleged actions of Manning were somehow
     justified. From the statements released by the government in connection
     with the case, Manning knew the information was classified and needed to
     be protected. He also appeared to know that his actions were illegal and
     could land him in trouble. 

      

     This is also not a justification for the actions of Wikipedia Wikileaks.
     Certain they aren't connected to Wikipedia. and the media outlets who
     are exploiting and profiting from the release of this information.
     However, what we are saying is that the hype surrounding the release is
     just that. There were a lot of classified documents released, but very
     few of them contained information that would truly shed new light on the
     actions of U.S. troops in Iraq or their allies or cause damage to the
     national security of the United States. While the amount of information
     released in this case was huge, it was clearly far less damaging than
     the information released by convicted spies such as Robert Hanssen and
     Aldrich Ames - information that crippled intelligence operations and
     killed people.

      

     Culture of Classification

      

     Perhaps one of the most interesting facets of the WikiLeaks case is that
     is serves to highlight the culture of classification that is so
     pervasive inside the U.S. government.  Only 204 of the 391,832 documents
     were classified at the confidential level, while 379,565 of them were
     classified at the secret level. This highlights the propensity of the
     U.S. government culture to classify documents at the highest possible
     classification, rather than at the lowest level truly required to
     protect said information. More is better.   Unclear if you are stating
     this as the writer or if you are stating the US perspective.  You
     address it below, but suggest making it clear here.

      

     Furthermore, while much of this material may have been somewhat
     sensitive at the time it was reported, most of that sensitivity has been
     lost over time, and many of the documents, like the two reports
     referenced above,  certainly no longer need to be classified.  EO 13256
     provides the ability for classifying agencies to set dates for materials
     to be declassified, and  indeed, according to the EO a date for
     declassification is supposed to be set every time a document is
     classified. But in practice, such declassification provisions are rarely
     used and most people just expect the documents to remain classified for
     the entire authorized period, which is 10 years in most cases and 25
     years when dealing with sensitive topics such as intelligence sources
     and methods or nuclear weapons.  Is it not used because its just another
     beauracratic thing to do or because people are covering their asses?

      

     This culture of classification tends to creates so much classified
     material that it then becomes very difficult for government employees
     and security managers to determine what is really sensitive and what
     truly needs to be protected.  It also tends to reinforce the belief
     among government employees that knowledge is power and that one can
     become powerful by having access to information and denying that access
     to others. This belief then can often contribute to the bureaucratic
     jealously that results in the failure to share intelligence - a practice
     that was criticized so heavily in the 9/11 Commission Report.  

      

     One of the things that will be important to watch in the wake of the
     WikiLeaks cases is how those who are a part of the culture of
     classification react to these events. Some U.S. government agencies,
     such as the FBI have bridled under the post 9/11 era mandates to share
     their information more widely and have been trying to scale back their
     sharing. As anyone who has dealt with the FBI can attest, they tend to
     be a semi-permeable membrane when it comes to the flow of information.
     Intelligence only flows one way - in -- and does not flow back out. But
     the FBI is certainly not alone. There are many organizations which are
     very hesitant to share information with other government agencies, even
     when those agencies have a legitimate need-to-know.

      

     Although the WikiLeaks case did not result in the disclosure of FBI or
     CIA information, and did not even shed much light on the DOD's
     intelligence collection activities, there are certainly people and
     organizations in the U.S. government who will attempt to use the case as
     bureaucratic justification for continuing to classify information at the
     highest possible levels and for controlling the access to the
     intelligence they generate even more stringently i.e. sharing it with
     less people. It will be interesting to watch and see if they are
     successful in their efforts to roll back some of the post 9/11
     information sharing mandates based on the large amount of media
     attention the WikiLeaks case has generated.

      

      

     Scott Stewart

     STRATFOR

     Office: 814 967 4046

     Cell: 814 573 8297

     scott.stewart@stratfor.com

     www.stratfor.com
","2010-10-26 21:44:29",1,"2012-03-01 23:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/976964_re-s-weekly-for-comments-wikileaks-lots-of-fuss-about.html","melissa.taylor@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
991928,"INSIGHT - US/Pakistan - Government and Military Relations - PK700
","   Source Code: PK700
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Former Pakistani intelligence officer
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: C (personal opinion/analysis and speculation)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   Source sent these comments with the article \"Thinking the Unthinkable\" by
   Abdus Salam Akhtar:

   A sample of the reaction to Mullens statement in Pakistan. I think the
   trust and the partnership has been very very badly damaged. People think
   this as the third betrayal of Pakistan by USA and the worst outcome has
   been the opportunity to those opposing Pakistan,s help/participation  to
   gloat and have something to say. The more US media or the officials blame
   The ISI the more they make it impossible for any one to even utter a word
   of support for US. 
   I am surprised that the US authorities have not yet learnt that in
   Pakistan there is very high value placed on respect. You can achieve a lot
   by talking nicely and secretly but insulting a nation and behaving like
   the proverbial ugly American will only earn you hostility. The national
   make up of Afghans and Pakistanis is not very different and both have
   fairly pronounced suicidal tendencies. I pray better sense prevails and
   damage repair exercise is undertaken. The entire political leadership
   across the board met yesterday and agreed to stand with the Army and The
   ISI.
","2011-09-30 18:43:15",1,"2012-02-27 12:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/991928_insight-us-pakistan-government-and-military-relations-pk700-.html","Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com","","fred.burton@stratfor.com,watchofficer@stratfor.com",""
994037,"INSIGHT - ECON/IRELAND - Moody's LATEST Analyses on Ireland
","   Not yet published, DO NOT FORWARD TO ANYONE.

   --

   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

   Marko Papic

   Geopol Analyst - Eurasia

   STRATFOR

   700 Lavaca Street - 900

   Austin, Texas

   78701 USA

   P: + 1-512-744-4094

   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-11-10 20:40:32",1,"2012-02-27 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/994037_insight-econ-ireland-moody-s-latest-analyses-on-ireland-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:econ@stratfor.com","econ@stratfor.com","attach/97/97446_sovereign risk report 11 8_Final dg.pdf
attach/97/97447_ireland againV2.docx"
999236,"Re: anybody have questions for former Spanish PM Aznar
","   he is impeccably dressed. the most beautiful hair... so silky and shiny! i
   might ask him what shampoo he uses
   On Nov 16, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Bayless Parsley wrote:

     Como se dice \"Movember\" en espanol?

     <moz-screenshot-68.png>

     On 11/16/10 3:33 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

       Uh, how about a party for stratfor in his (or one of his friends')
       mediterranean villa?

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       From: Michael Wilson <michael.wilson@stratfor.com>
       Sender: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
       Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:32:32 -0600
       To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
       ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
       Subject: Re: anybody have questions for former Spanish PM Aznar
       can i crash on his couch?

       On 11/16/10 3:26 PM, Bayless Parsley wrote:

         can you just tell him \"good call on blaming ETA\" for me?

         On 11/16/10 3:18 PM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

           he's teaching our class today

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com
","2010-11-16 22:44:36",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/999236_re-anybody-have-questions-for-former-spanish-pm-aznar-.html","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1001359,"Re: Former Spanish PM Azner
","   Haha, I'm glad you noticed those gorgeous locks as well
   Aznar could have been exaggerating the ETA in VZ stuff, but who knows

   Sent from my iPhone
   On Nov 16, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Reginald Thompson
   <reginald.thompson@stratfor.com> wrote:

     At least 20 camps? Pretty impressive. That's more than I've seen in OS,
     where so far all they've been focusing on is the Guasdalito camp where
     Cubillas was allegedly at, but it's quite possible all those former
     etarras are spread out all over the place. I would he's a lot more open
     about heaping criticisms on Chavez since I heard him speak at Trinity
     back in 2004, where he referred to him as \"an interesting man.\" My
     brother has a picture of himself with Aznar at that event. Every time I
     look at it I really do think, it's always his hair that I notice.....

     -----------------
     Reginald Thompson

     Cell: (011) 504 8990-7741

     OSINT
     Stratfor

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 5:26:21 PM
     Subject: Former Spanish PM Azner

     Wow, SeA+-or presidente is hardcore.. Way more extreme than even the  
     Israeli officials I've heard speak. He honestly believes that all  
     terrorists are the same and that nothing short of total war can defeat  
     them. He is adamantly against any kind of negotiation with terrorists  
     and criticizes France, Germany and others heavily in this regard. He  
     attributes French and German \"weakness\" on counterterrorism to their  
     larger Muslim populations. He said OBL's statement on retaking Andaluz  
     is all he heard and the Germans and French just didn't get it. He says  
     poverty has zero connection to terrorism and that developmental aid  
     policies are useless. On ETA, he said the ceasefires are just time  
     buying measures, nothing more. In Catalonia he says the regional govt  
     encourages Muslim immigration from Pakistan, Algeria, etc because they  
     can more easily linguistically integrate them as opposed to Spanish-
     speaking immigrants. This is also where the most radical imams are in  
     the country. He also said ETA has at least 20 camps in Venezuela and  
     ggat farc and eta work with each other in training l, weapons, etc.

     Overall, he's very ideological and hardline. Good reminder of the  
     personal role in poltics (though he also paid for that and is  
     embarassed by his loss)

     Also, great hair.

     Sent from my iPhone
","2010-11-17 00:44:52",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1001359_re-former-spanish-pm-azner-.html","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1002984,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Brown

   On 10/24/11 11:50 AM, Morgan Kauffman wrote:

     If you're going to cover the vigilante/robin-hood aspect, I found this
     in today's sweeps: 
     http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/10/anonymous-takes-down-darknet-child-porn-site-on-tor-network.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
     and 
     http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2395175,00.asp#fbid=KvMufY_Mq3a

     They've got a sub-group that tries to hunt down child-abuse sites and
     users - last week they published a list of 1500 names of visitors to one
     site, in addition to performing a couple of DDoS attacks to the server.

     On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

       Link: themeData

       I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to have a
       broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no nothing, or
       almost nothing about what this group is and the threat it poses.
       Reviewing their list of attacks
       (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most of the
       cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood of the internet
       . The interesting thing when it comes to their interactions with the
       cartels is the dubious role they play: at the same time they can be
       fighting crime by revealing cartel members/supporters, but they can
       also put lives in risk.

       However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by Anonymous.
       The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can conduct a cyber
       attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
       (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

       If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government websites,
       or if I am just a internet user, I would like to know more about these
       guys. Who they are? What are they interested in? How they operate? Who
       they have targeted so far? How can I defend myself from them? In what
       countries are they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use
       them to achieve any particular goal?

       On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

         nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else can
         build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they pose to
         innocent people caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing
         on journalists or taxi drivers they show little understanding of the
         situation.  This has long term implications in not just Mexico. 
         They don't consider the consequences of their actions and they act
         without understanding the environment.  It was the same when they
         released information on the Sony Playstation network to protest
         Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

         On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

           Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
           possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
           Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by Anonymous,
           threatens revealing personal information on cartels as well as
           states a member had been kidnapped. I could not find any sources
           outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being kidnapped.
           According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous
           Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual posting flyers in
           Veracruz as part of the Operation Paperstorm protest, although
           that is speculation.

           Link: themeData
           Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
           denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed
           out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
           Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked
           individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the
           most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
           the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing
           identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists
           who collude with criminal cartels. No mention of banks that accept
           their laundered money? That is when they would be a threat to
           their bottom line. They can always buy cabbies, cops, politicos
           and journos but tracing banks.  The hacker group demanded Los
           Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
           consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
           was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
           their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
           potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and
           hackers, presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels
           lashing out at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting
           on cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

           What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
           threat to Mexican cartels.
                o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
           media
                o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash
           out at cartels

           While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
           threat
                o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
           identifiable information on cartel members
                o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire
           on cartels
                o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
           communications, identifiable information on cartels members have
           to be considered in the realm of possibilities for
                       Anonymous
                       o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
           illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

           Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
           ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result,
           their understanding of cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous
           may act with confidence when sitting in front of a computer, but
           this may blind them to any possible retribution. They may not even
           know the impact of any online assault of cartels.
                o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists
           will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these
           individuals are forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi
           drivers are often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
           halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals will not
           have a significant impact on cartel                   operations.
           Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
           Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any
           consequences from this.
                o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels
           are willing to go protect their operations.
                   o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                   o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
           community before, coercing computer science majors into working
           for them.
                   o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
           discovering hackers within Mexico.

            

           On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

             Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but
             there are several issues to address and fix here.

             These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
             discussion:

                  o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine
             but we can't gloss over that fact
                  o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
             between stealing bank records from government computers and
             overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                  o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
             information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
             kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
             talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
             politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
             going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
             killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
             operational details, because they acted as informants, because
             they exposed links with officials or because they somehow
             sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
             information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                  o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
             realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a
             measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity
             except for the technical ability by a very small number of its
             members to infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal
             information. Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on
             a network that is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)?
             Where else could information be found? Government databases?
             Once we know what kind of information is accessible, we can also
             know more about the consequences of dissemination.
                  o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to
             trace back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of
             killings done by people who may not understand the difference
             between an anon hacker and a blogger.

             On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

               wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

               -------- Original Message --------

                Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                   Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                   From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
               Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                     To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

               you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need
               a lot more work

               You need to lay out:

               a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger
               section is unclear
               b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
               therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
               c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
               anything
               d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill
               anyone who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

               I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
               insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant
               levels of sophistication in their online presence, to include
               the use of cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
               is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
               business online, in a protected fashion.

               Karen Hooper
               Latin America Analyst
               o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
               c: 512.750.7234
               STRATFOR
               www.stratfor.com
               On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

               On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

               Link: themeData

               Trigger

               Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
               Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?,
               lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
               denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video
               released depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a
               screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent video release,
               Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels.
               Threats such as releasing identities of Mexican? American?
               taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists who collude
               with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas
               release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences.
               The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels
               and hackers, presents an unprecedented war front for the
               cartels. The vastly different operations of Anonymous and Los
               Zetas leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have
               little experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no
               experience with the cartels. I do not believe for a second
               that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                

               In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
               mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
               their demands of releasing a kidnapped member this should be
               mentioned right up front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is
               threatening to hit back. Provide enough details so we
               understand who this guy is and why/how he was abducted. are
               not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing revealing
               information on cartel members and operations are true, cartels
               will likely respond with violence against individuals revealed
               as opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous members?.
               It also is likely that public disclosure of GOM officials who
               collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving
               the Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this
               means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
               effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against
               Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will continue
               their threats against any individual using online media WC....
               you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers
               here. against the cartels.

                

               The Battle Space

               Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
               realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere
               of the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience
               geographical boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
               exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They
               are physical people tho live in the real world. They have
               names and addresses - although most of them are likely outside
               of MX.)  Anonymous' power base consists of their technical
               capabilities in hacking. Any information connected to the
               Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying
               the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's
               population could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of
               what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
               Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in
               revenue, but it does not really matter if you don't run
               operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money via
               e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on the web than
               the jihadists.)

               Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power
               base consists of the perceived anonymity that its members
               believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating
               through the internet. This gives an opening for people
               disgruntled by anything and everything to practice general
               dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity + audience =
               troll. Only a fraction of the large web of people who identify
               themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
               capability. 

               The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has
               been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

               The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US
               and Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking
               to maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
               commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
               and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from
               insight. There is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't
               have a similar capacity.  Their power base is built by large
               amounts of revenue and escalating brutal violence. Cartels
               like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing different types of
               threats. Cartels are always suffering at the hands of cartel
               on cartel violence. While battling each other, cartels still
               face arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to
               avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
               have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
               bloggers in order to cover details of their operations. ok...
               but that's kind of a red herrng for this discussion. You need
               to focus on the possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't
               just assume they have no cyber presence.

                

               Anonymous' Weapons

               Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
               criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability
               to combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly
               disseminating sensitive information on cartels and propagating
               anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced websites
               in Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous
               admitted in their video to cartels, they cannot fight with
               guns.  The significance of a targeted information operations
               campaign by technically elite individuals can not be
               overlooked should not be underestimated. Cartels view main
               stream media outlets and social media blogs as such a threat
               to their operations, that they have continued to target
               journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los
               Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on
               the body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
               denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive
               here, and it's not really addressing the subheading

               As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet
               risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to
               suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing information they
               threaten to release. By releasing identities of individuals
               cooperating with Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life
               of those individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate
               sensitive information is limited by what is available via the
               Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
               should always be considered a possibility of an attack.
               However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the US
               governments computer networks, information available to
               Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy to acquire. 
               what are you trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

                

               Cartel's Defense

                           A counter response to the video? by the cartels
               has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a
               kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun
               addressing the threat posed by hackers so... how has there not
               been a counter response? also this undermines your statements
               above about how Anonymous is soley internet based, and
               underlines the vulnerabilities of associated members. How did
               they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that could very
               well give you some indication to the technical ability of the
               cartels . As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
               wide web , the cartels will face a number of challenges which
               rarely are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has
               whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You
               can assume (and we have good intel indicating that) they are
               working on disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening
               cartels, can operate in any region of the world. Personal
               information including locations is only available if a hacker
               chooses to divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy
               enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only work for
               Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
               online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or
               start employing hackers of their own under their payroll?
               Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                           Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
               Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the
               help of computer science majors through personal threats has
               been reported in the past where? What cartels? reported
               where?.  Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence
               and drug trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of
               technical experts to help combat any threat by computer
               hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been
               demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable of
               identifying any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
               enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
               experience and resources than cartels, struggle to find
               hackers through investigations. A) How do you know they are
               not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm
               goign to assume that not all hackers are equally difficult to
               track down

                           In order to compete with an online foe, cartels
               will likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar
               with, brute force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT
               operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they
               wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
               communities will likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel
               members.  Narco banners and public display of violence will
               likely continue to be used to scare online media into
               submission i'm not really seeing the online
               media-international hacking group connection here.  The cruel
               manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer
               hackers have unlikely encountered before in their life.
               Whether the fear of cartel violence softens the confidence of
               Anonymous will remain to be seen until cartels are able to
               seek out and capture members of the hacker group.. Or the
               Narcos could call the collective bluff and simply go on and
               shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

 --
 Sincerely,

 Marko Primorac
 Tactical Analyst
 marko.primorac@stratfor.com
 Tel: +1 512.744.4300
 Cell: +1 717.557.8480
","2011-10-24 18:59:47",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1002984_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","marko.primorac@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1003207,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   I agree. I haven't seen any defining attributes of Anonymous as a group.
   They may not even know the identities of each other. There are several
   facebook / twitter Anonymous pages, which seem to be run by different
   individuals.

   What about defining Anonymous in terms of the individual? Instead of
   saying Anonymous attacking cartels, Individuals acting under the Anonymous
   name....

   -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents have access to,
   and doubt they have such information that provides any sort of existential
   threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 
   This is a problem with the threat assessment. Technically, anything cartel
   related (emails, online transactions, Mexican LEA information, etc.) would
   be available to a hacker, but we don't know if they have had access to
   this information, or if the hackers interested in harming cartels are
   capable. It's not even confirmed hackers have revealing information on
   cartel supporters which the video claims.

   On 10/24/11 1:11 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     Somehow we have to stop referring to 'anonymous' as a monolith.  They
     are a bunch of different people that essentially get together in an
     online-form of a mob to carry out some action. I'm not sure how to do
     this in writing consistently.  But let's start with shit like 'people
     joining Anonymous chatrooms and claiming to be part of the movement' or
     something like that. 

     Comments in green below.  This is coming together nicely. 

     On 10/24/11 11:19 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of
       these in the US?
        What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
       I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
       whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
       because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
       revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of
       understanding of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is
       expendable to cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of
       coercion.

       Anonymous does not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
       cartels.  mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of
       el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication
       as a tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable
       intelligence, the government will use it against the cartels. That's a
       physical threat, if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify
       that Anonymous can not directly effect physical security. Any impact
       to the cartel in revealing information will be from actions of rival
       cartels or the GoM. They may release information on a given politician
       being linked to the cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the
       politician will feel an impact (Just because Anonymous says there is a
       link, doesn't make it true). It would be up to others to take action. 
       I think the way you have it worded in the above sentence is good. 
       Follow with a sentence explaining the rest of it, because readers will
       have the same question Karen did.  Something like 'Rather, the threat
       to cartels would come in what information anonymous could expose that
       is useful to their enemies'

       Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online
       activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to
       conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't know how
       much, but we do know they will have some points of operational
       vulnerability I have heard of cartels doing business online, but don't
       have specific examples which could be used in assessing their
       vulnerability online.

       by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired,
       arrested or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I
       should say, there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out
       politicians as colluding.
       On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

         Karen Hooper
         Latin America Analyst
         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
         c: 512.750.7234
         STRATFOR
         www.stratfor.com
         On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
         Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
         possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
         Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by people using
         the banner of Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on
         cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
         find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual
         being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico
         and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual
         posting flyers ['critical of cartels'?] in Veracruz as part of the
         Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation. [this is
         good and will be enough information to go with, though you'll need a
         quick explanation of what 'operation paperstorm' is.  Adding
         something in the explaining the flyers will work]

         Link: themeData
         Anonymous, a decentralized hacker collective  famous for distributed
         denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government and corporate
         websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
         statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video
         depicting a masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on
         October 10? With the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold
         threats towards the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as
         releasing identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
         journalists who collude with criminal cartels do they specify
         whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of these in the US?
          What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
         group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
         face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
         was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
         their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
         potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
         presents a unique threat towards TCOs [If TCO= transnational
         criminal organization, it's not really unique.  Many such
         organizations do their crimes online, and have been hacked in
         response--like the nigerian princess scams. I think you should just
         say it's a unique threat to DTOs] . We know of cartels lashing out
         at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels
         dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

         What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
              o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
         threat to Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a
         gun to the head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for
         the using publication as a tool to force government action. If you
         reveal actionable intelligence, the government will use it against
         the cartels. That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
              o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
         media
              o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out
         at cartels

         While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
         threat, if it had access to certain types of information:

                 -The threat is in the information they can expose that may
     be of use to any cartel enemies.  That could be to the government or
     other cartels or even local citizens (the last one may be a stretch, but
     i could imagine someone discrediting cartel members in the eyes of the
     public).

              o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims tocut possess
         identifiable information on cartel members 
              o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
         cartels [cut this part here, and make the point at the end of this
         section/paragraph]
              o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
         identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in
         the realm of possibilities for
                     Anonymous
                     o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
         illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels
         are known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We
         don't know how much, but we do know they will have some points of
         operational vulnerability

        -They claim to have information on those that collude with cartels 
     (use the stuff you have above].  Releasing such information could hurt
     cartels' support networks, but most of these people are also easily
     replaceable. 
                 -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents
     have access to, and doubt they have such information that provides any
     sort of existential threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 

         Most Anonymous hackers are likely far removed from the ultra-violent
         world of drug trafficking in Mexico, but it's quite possible that
         some of its members in this campaign are in Mexico and opposed to
         the violence [or something like that.  my limited understanding is
         there are still activist crusader-types in Mexico, yeah?  it seems
         very possible those with a bit of time or computer skills could have
         joined up with anonymous] . As a result, their understanding of
         cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous members in other
         countries may act with confidence when sitting in front of a
         computer, but this may blind them to any possible retribution. They
         may not even know the impact of any online assault of cartels.  [the
         part below and above is written rather normatively.  We need to take
         that out.  just state the facts]
              o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists
         will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these
         individuals are forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi
         drivers are often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
         halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals will not have
         a significant impact on cartel                   operations.
         Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
         Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any
         consequences from this. by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you
         mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and that happens all
         the time.
              o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels
         are willing to go protect their operations.
                 o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                 o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
         community before, coercing computer science majors into working for
         them.
                 o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
         discovering hackers within Mexico.
         need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply
         publishing tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the
         same camp as the bloggers  [yes, i think it needs to be clear that
         their damage will be similar to what bloggers or wikileaks can
         do--limited.  But maybe more a danger to themselves, since they are
         no longer challenging governments, but criminal organizations]

          

         On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

           Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but
           there are several issues to address and fix here.

           These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
           discussion:

                o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but
           we can't gloss over that fact
                o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
           between stealing bank records from government computers and
           overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
           information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
           kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
           talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
           politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
           going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
           killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
           operational details, because they acted as informants, because
           they exposed links with officials or because they somehow sullied
           the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of information is
           damaging to the cartels themselves?
                o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
           realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure
           of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for
           the technical ability by a very small number of its members to
           infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal information.
           Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on a network that
           is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
           information be found? Government databases? Once we know what kind
           of information is accessible, we can also know more about the
           consequences of dissemination.
                o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
           back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings
           done by people who may not understand the difference between an
           anon hacker and a blogger.

           On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

             wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

             -------- Original Message --------

              Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                 From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
             Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                   To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

             you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a
             lot more work

             You need to lay out:

             a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section
             is unclear
             b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
             therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
             c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
             d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone
             who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

             I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
             insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant
             levels of sophistication in their online presence, to include
             the use of cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
             is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
             business online, in a protected fashion.

             Karen Hooper
             Latin America Analyst
             o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
             c: 512.750.7234
             STRATFOR
             www.stratfor.com
             On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

             On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             Link: themeData

             Trigger

             Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
             Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed
             out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
             denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released
             depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a screen?
             exactly when?.  With the most recent video release, Anonymous
             makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels. Threats such as
             releasing identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
             politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels.
             The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped
             member otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
             between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
             unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly different
             operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
             Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
             believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
             not believe for a second that the cartels have no experience
             with hackers.

              

             In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned
             as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their
             demands of releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned
             right up front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening
             to hit back. Provide enough details so we understand who this
             guy is and why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous'
             claims of possessing revealing information on cartel members and
             operations are true, cartels will likely respond with violence
             against individuals revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you
             mean Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public
             disclosure of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force the
             GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i
             don't understand what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten
             Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
             against Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will
             continue their threats against any individual using online media
             WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about
             bloggers here. against the cartels.

              

             The Battle Space

             Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
             realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere
             of the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience
             geographical boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
             exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They
             are physical people tho live in the real world. They have names
             and addresses - although most of them are likely outside of MX.)
              Anonymous' power base consists of their technical capabilities
             in hacking. Any information connected to the Internet is
             vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's of
             individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population
             could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
             has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big
             company with a website that brings in revenue, but it does not
             really matter if you don't run operations on the web. Los Z
             don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are also far less
             dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

             Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power
             base consists of the perceived anonymity that its members
             believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating
             through the internet. This gives an opening for people
             disgruntled by anything and everything to practice general
             dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity + audience = troll.
             Only a fraction of the large web of people who identify
             themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
             capability. 

             The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been
             from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

             The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
             Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
             maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
             commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
             and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight.
             There is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar
             capacity.  Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue
             and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
             experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels are
             always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence.
             While battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law
             Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in
             the flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted media
             outlets. Murdering journalists and online bloggers in order to
             cover details of their operations. ok... but that's kind of a
             red herrng for this discussion. You need to focus on the
             possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
             have no cyber presence.

              

             Anonymous' Weapons

             Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
             criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
             combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly
             disseminating sensitive information on cartels and propagating
             anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced websites in
             Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous
             admitted in their video to cartels, they cannot fight with
             guns.  The significance of a targeted information operations
             campaign by technically elite individuals can not be overlooked
             should not be underestimated. Cartels view main stream media
             outlets and social media blogs as such a threat to their
             operations, that they have continued to target journalists and
             bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was placed
             with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the body of a
             blogger. The message threatened any users who denounce cartels
             on blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not
             really addressing the subheading

             As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet
             risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest
             Anonymous is capable of possessing information they threaten to
             release. By releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
             Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
             individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
             information is limited by what is available via the Internet.
             Government computers connected to the Internet should always be
             considered a possibility of an attack. However, as with the
             compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer
             networks, information available to Mexico's intelligence
             collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to
             say here? This isn't clear at all

              

             Cartel's Defense

                         A counter response to the video? by the cartels has
             yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped
             member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the
             threat posed by hackers so... how has there not been a counter
             response? also this undermines your statements above about how
             Anonymous is soley internet based, and underlines the
             vulnerabilities of associated members. How did they find teh
             Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well give you
             some indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
             Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the
             cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed
             for them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies
             dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and
             we have good intel indicating that) they are working on
             disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can
             operate in any region of the world. Personal information
             including locations is only available if a hacker chooses to
             divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
             figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous. Cartels
             are only capable of dealing with their online enemy, if they can
             physically reach out to them. Or start employing hackers of
             their own under their payroll? Stranger things have happened,
             Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                         Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
             Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the
             help of computer science majors through personal threats has
             been reported in the past where? What cartels? reported where?. 
             Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence and drug
             trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of technical
             experts to help combat any threat by computer hackers.  While
             identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it
             is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
             operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies such
             as the FBi, with far more technical experience and resources
             than cartels, struggle to find hackers through investigations.
             A) How do you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they
             kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are
             equally difficult to track down

                         In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
             likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with,
             brute force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT
             operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they
             wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
             communities will likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel
             members.  Narco banners and public display of violence will
             likely continue to be used to scare online media into submission
             i'm not really seeing the online media-international hacking
             group connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
             inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
             encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of cartel
             violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will remain to be
             seen until cartels are able to seek out and capture members of
             the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the collective bluff
             and simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can
             inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:50:49",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1003207_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1003423,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Sean, just to be clear

   Your point is that Anonymous hasn't mattered?  Is your argument that
   hackers haven't mattered either?  because if Anonymous is a mob of hackers
   as you argue, how haven't they mattered to their targets?  what about all
   the money spent fighting them?  and as Tristan just pointed out - how
   about HBGary Federal?  He said the CEO's SSN and address were posted on
   Twitter.  What about all the sensitive emails that were lost?  We have no
   way of knowing what was in those emails, or how they are being used to
   make money at the expense of HBGary.  I have always agreed that they
   haven't reached a level of threat to the US, but that surely doesn't mean
   they won't.  And there are quite a few countries, organizations, and
   people below that rather high standard who could not withstand an attack,
   including an email purge of personal emails onto the web. 

   On 10/24/11 7:33 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     As far as Aurora, I haven't followed it closely. Did they ever identify
     the attackers or number of attackers? I thought the target set was the
     only thing that led people to believe the Chinese government was
     responsible.

     2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
     responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating cyber
     intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case HUMINT is
     just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT capabilities does not
     indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers. NSA may have there own
     department for tracking hackers but it does not make it SIGINT.

     Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

     Wikipedia provides an indepth explanation on SIGINT . But in short,
     SIGINT is the capability in exploiting signals provided by communication
     devices, and what can be obtained by exploiting the signals. Combining
     computer network operations and SIGINT is innaccurate, because while
     SIGINT may be used with other intelligence disciplines in order to
     identify a hacker, it is not necessary and is no more related than any
     other intel discipline. SIGINT could help you identify a computer
     devices (not the operator) emitting a signal (wifi), and cryptanalysis,
     which is also separate from SIGINT but often used in conjunction, could
     help in providing methods to decrypt messages over a network, but SIGINT
     wouldn't obtain those messages.

     In order to exploit computer network operations, the operators involved
     are specifically trained in computer science disciplines and
     technologies tailored specifically for computer activity.

     NSA also is the primary agency for cryptanalysis. Because of
     technological demands of SIGINT and cryptanalysis, NSA has enormous
     resources in R&D, so I can see why the USG would move some CNO to NSA.
     But their SIGINT capabilities are not indicators of CNO capabilities.

     Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary labor
     for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are discussing
     operations on the scale of causing physical damage to extremely
     sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of a cyber attack that
     matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not mattered.  You chose the most
     prolific example of a cyber attack (which the whole operation consisted
     mainly outside of the cyber attack itself). Anything that falls short of
     this doesn't matter? Define what matters. None of anonymous' attacks
     have physically damaged secret Iranian nuclear facilities, but I think
     you are downplaying too much the significance of exposing corporate
     secrets, halting businesses' revenues, and embarrassing State actors by
     defacing their websites.

     On 10/24/11 5:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

       On 10/24/11 5:07 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

         On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

           1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already The USG
           arrested 10 Russian spies last year, are you willing to say
           foreign intel is not capable of conducting espionage undetected?
           No, of course not.  But I also would not argue that the SVR is so
           good to be immune to detection, as you are arguing with hackers. 
           I'm saying they are more detectable than you think.  There is no
           such thing as truly anonymous.  Everythign leaves a trail.  Will
           that trail in every instance lead to a single individual? no.  but
           it can lead to a place, an organization, and often, an
           individual. 

           2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
           responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating
           cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this
           case HUMINT is just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT
           capabilities does not indicate its capabilities in tracking
           hackers. NSA may have there own department for tracking hackers
           but it does not make it SIGINT.

           Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

           The question is if the attack is high priority enough.  Many
           people assume there is no attribution because there is no
           response, but I don't think that is accurate.  Many people say
           this, because no attribution is one reason for no response.  Yes,
           they do, and if they think that is the primary reason for lack of
           response, then I think they are wrong. 

           3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new
           laptop and start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack
           involves much more than a recently bought laptop.  In the same way
           there is an attack cycle for a terrorist attack or crime, there is
           one for a cyber attack.  A very simple attack may be as hard to
           trace as a nearly-random mugging in the dark in a neighborhood
           with much more serious crime and no CCTV cameras.  A more
           complicated attack, however, involves pre-operational
           surveillance, developing exploits, developing programs and code,
           gaining access, exploiting that, and carrying out an attack. 
           Discovering exploits and writing code can be done entirely
           offline, out of sight of law enforcement or intel agencies.
           Pre-operational surveillance and gaining access (the point of the
           exploit you write offline) would fit in my example. The point is,
           if you don't link your computer to identifiable information, you
           remain anonymous. Just like people use certain methods to build
           IEDs, people use certain mehtods to design programs and code for
           cyber attacks.  Over time, those methods become identifiable and
           more and more attributable. This is, for example, how AURORA is
           linked back to the Chinese.  and very specific Chinese, I may add.
           Being connected or unconnected doesn't matter, eventually you have
           to use what you develop, or copy from someone, and all of those
           things can be analyzed.   And that takes time, giving more time
           for your exposure Exposure comes from network activity with the
           target, a lot of the pre-operational phase of an attack can occur
           without network activity. Look at everything that went into
           Stuxnet as a great example, that couldn't be done with one person
           with a new laptop. Writing the code and hacking was just a small
           part of necessary labor for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't
           think we are discussing operations on the scale of causing
           physical damage to extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is
           an example of a cyber attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so
           far has not mattered.   All of this activity provides activity and
           evidence which helps for attribution.  Of course it is always
           possible to develop an attack, just like any other operation, that
           even the best law enforcement and national intelligence agencies
           have trouble or cannot attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that
           it's very difficult for someone to successfully use Anonymous as a
           cover and have NSA, GHQ, MID, Aman, etc, be unable to attribute
           it.  How do you know if NSA or GHQ is effective in identifying
           hackers?I don't, but I'm confident they are far better than you
           are allowing for.    They may not choose to cover it if it is
           small scale crime, however. 
           On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored
             cyber warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing
             that, since you can conduct a cyber attack without associating
             with a hacker group and still deny / cover actions on behalf of
             the State. An individual attacking US computer assets from
             China, may be working by himself or on behalf of the Chinese
             government, but unless the US has other intel on the Chinese
             government's cyber warfare activities in order to corroborate
             there is little capability to distinguish.

             It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
             operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets
             from SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual
             responsible for hacking State run servers. In the past, I have
             turned to SIGINT organizations for collections on computer
             related material, but this was due to the US being behind in
             cyber warfare, and not knowing where to assign responsibility.
             However, this has changed dramatically in the last couple of
             years.

             Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As
             an extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go
             to a Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the
             online activity to something revealing (accessing personal email
             accounts, tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop,
             etc..), and begin hacking government email accounts then never
             use the laptop again. Unless LEA could get an accurate
             description of my appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible
             security cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

             Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to
             these enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied
             to specific computer-related activities because of the
             difficulty in identifying individuals.

             I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown,
             would be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a
             common participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a
             State? Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that
             State agent organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter
             buddies, what signs could a LEA look for to distinguish?

             On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

               In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a
               bit)

               1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything
               actually harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't,
               but i'm very doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first
               real case where they could do some minor damage--to individual
               people, not not to an organization or anything that would come
               as a serious or strategic threat. 

               2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is
               actually pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as
               a cover, but that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could
               probably still be attributed if important enough to those
               agencies.  The recent attack on Sony actually brings this
               issue up- Whoever is calling themselves anonymous denies they
               did it.  And keep in mind how much they have claimed an
               publicized attacks in the past, even before they were carried
               out.  The attack on the Playstation Network was more
               sophisticated than anonymous' usual work (though potentially
               coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that distracted
               Sony's IT security).  But whoever did it, again, no real
               damage came of it.  Congress is holding hearings over data
               security, but this is no different than the OC groups stealing
               your credit card information.  LE will go after them, have
               some success, but the threat is not that large. 
               On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

                 Link: themeData

                 I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to
                 have a broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no
                 nothing, or almost nothing about what this group is and the
                 threat it poses. Reviewing their list of attacks
                 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in
                 most of the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin
                 Hood of the internet . The interesting thing when it comes
                 to their interactions with the cartels is the dubious role
                 they play: at the same time they can be fighting crime by
                 revealing cartel members/supporters, but they can also put
                 lives in risk.

                 However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
                 Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth,
                 can conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
                 (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

                 If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
                 websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to
                 know more about these guys. Who they are? What are they
                 interested in? How they operate? Who they have targeted so
                 far? How can I defend myself from them? In what countries
                 are they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use
                 them to achieve any particular goal?

                 On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                   nice.  i still think the central focus, and what
                   everything else can build off of, is that Anonymous
                   doesn't know the threat they pose to innocent people
                   caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing on
                   journalists or taxi drivers they show little understanding
                   of the situation.  This has long term implications in not
                   just Mexico.  They don't consider the consequences of
                   their actions and they act without understanding the
                   environment.  It was the same when they released
                   information on the Sony Playstation network to protest
                   Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

                   On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                     Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of
                     discussing possible cartel responses, the focus is on
                     what type of threat Anonymous can pose to cartels. The
                     video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing
                     personal information on cartels as well as states a
                     member had been kidnapped. I could not find any sources
                     outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being
                     kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous
                     Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be
                     an individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the
                     Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is
                     speculation.

                     Link: themeData
                     Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
                     distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on
                     government websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the
                     Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's criminal
                     cartels, including a video depicting a masked individual
                     addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the
                     most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats
                     towards the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as
                     releasing identities of taxi drivers, police,
                     politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal
                     cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a
                     fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. In
                     the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                     mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                     reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped
                     member are not met. The potential of conflict between
                     Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents a unique
                     threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out at
                     online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on
                     cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

                     What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                          o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical
                     security threat to Mexican cartels.
                          o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to
                     exploit online media
                          o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico
                     to lash out at cartels

                     While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to
                     pose a threat
                          o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to
                     possess identifiable information on cartel members
                          o     It is unknown what information Anonymous
                     could acquire on cartels
                          o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
                     communications, identifiable information on cartels
                     members have to be considered in the realm of
                     possibilities for
                                 Anonymous
                                 o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability
                     to reveal illicit online activity (child pornography
                     rings)

                     Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
                     ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
                     result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
                     limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting
                     in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any
                     possible retribution. They may not even know the impact
                     of any online assault of cartels.
                          o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
                     journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not
                     understand some of these individuals are forced to
                     collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are
                     often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
                     halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals
                     will not have a significant impact on cartel            
                           operations. Politicans have been accused of
                     working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor)
                     before, however there has yet to be any consequences
                     from this.
                          o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the
                     extent cartels are willing to go protect their
                     operations.
                             o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                             o    Cartels have reached out to the computer
                     science community before, coercing computer science
                     majors into working for them.
                             o    This provides the cartels with the
                     possibility of discovering hackers within Mexico.

                      

                     On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                       Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the
                       idea but there are several issues to address and fix
                       here.

                       These are the bullets of my main analytical concern
                       with the discussion:

                            o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why.
                       that's fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                            o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                       difference between stealing bank records from
                       government computers and overloading www.loszetas.com
                       main page.
                            o     There's no thought out process of what sort
                       of information could anon have on the cartels. What
                       kind of info is kept online and accessible to
                       potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
                       identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
                       politicians and businessmen who need to worry about
                       what anon is going to be saying. Think about why the
                       bloggers and media were killed in previous instances.
                       Was it because they revealed operational details,
                       because they acted as informants, because they exposed
                       links with officials or because they somehow sullied
                       the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
                       information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                            o     Once you identify this info - think about
                       if anon can realistically access it and disseminate it
                       so it causes a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have
                       any intelligence capacity except for the technical
                       ability by a very small number of its members to
                       infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal
                       information. Now what kind of information would a
                       cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
                       internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
                       information be found? Government databases? Once we
                       know what kind of information is accessible, we can
                       also know more about the consequences of
                       dissemination.
                            o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel?
                       Sufficient to trace back attacks? If it's not, there
                       risks to be a lot of killings done by people who may
                       not understand the difference between an anon hacker
                       and a blogger.

                       On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                         wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                         -------- Original Message --------

                          Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                             Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                             From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                         Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                               To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                         you've got some of the issues here, but this is
                         going to need a lot more work

                         You need to lay out:

                         a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your
                         trigger section is unclear
                         b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence
                         is, and therefore their vulnerabilities and
                         capabilities
                         c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high
                         security anything
                         d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to
                         kill anyone who breaches their systems or exposes
                         their connections

                         I also just want to point out that we have
                         reasonable reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very
                         least has some significant levels of sophistication
                         in their online presence, to include the use of
                         cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
                         is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also
                         conduct business online, in a protected fashion.

                         Karen Hooper
                         Latin America Analyst
                         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                         c: 512.750.7234
                         STRATFOR
                         www.stratfor.com
                         On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                         On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                         Link: themeData

                         Trigger

                         Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy,
                         hackers. Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group
                         famous for...?, lashed out at drug cartels via the
                         Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
                         criminal cartels, including a video released
                         depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a
                         screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent video
                         release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                         criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing
                         identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers,
                         police, politicians, and journalists who collude
                         with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los
                         Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
                         face consequences. The potential of conflict between
                         Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
                         unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly
                         different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas
                         leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have
                         little experience in handling. i believe that
                         Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
                         not believe for a second that the cartels have no
                         experience with hackers.

                          

                         In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
                         was mentioned as a day cartels could expect
                         Anonymous' reaction if their demands of releasing a
                         kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up
                         front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is
                         threatening to hit back. Provide enough details so
                         we understand who this guy is and why/how he was
                         abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of
                         possessing revealing information on cartel members
                         and operations are true, cartels will likely respond
                         with violence against individuals revealed as
                         opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous
                         members?. It also is likely that public disclosure
                         of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force
                         the GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat
                         complexity i don't understand what this means. You
                         mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
                         effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
                         against Anonymous remains unanswered . However,
                         cartels will continue their threats against any
                         individual using online media WC.... you mean tools?
                         or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers here.
                         against the cartels.

                          

                         The Battle Space

                         Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two
                         separate realities from each other. Anonymous
                         operates solely in sphere of the computer networks.
                         Anonymous does not experience geographical
                         boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
                         exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely
                         true. They are physical people tho live in the real
                         world. They have names and addresses - although most
                         of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power
                         base consists of their technical capabilities in
                         hacking. Any information connected to the Internet
                         is vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying
                         the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst
                         of Mexico's population could be quite difficult.
                          Remember that most of what Anonymous has done are
                         DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big
                         company with a website that brings in revenue, but
                         it does not really matter if you don't run
                         operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money
                         via e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on
                         the web than the jihadists.)

                         Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but
                         it's power base consists of the perceived anonymity
                         that its members believe themselves to have, real or
                         otherwise, by operating through the internet. This
                         gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
                         and everything to practice general dickery. As the
                         popular meme goes, anonymity + audience = troll.
                         Only a fraction of the large web of people who
                         identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of
                         serious IT capability. 

                         The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so
                         far has been from targeted arrests by Law
                         Enforcement Agencies.

                         The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the
                         streets in US and Mexican cities. They are run as a
                         business, always looking to maximize profits and
                         expand. But they are bricks and mortar commerce.
                         Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
                         and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that
                         from insight. There is no reason to assume that Los
                         Zetas don't have a similar capacity.  Their power
                         base is built by large amounts of revenue and
                         escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas,
                         are experienced in facing different types of
                         threats. Cartels are always suffering at the hands
                         of cartel on cartel violence. While battling each
                         other, cartels still face arrests by Law Enforcement
                         Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in
                         the flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted
                         media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
                         bloggers in order to cover details of their
                         operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng
                         for this discussion. You need to focus on the
                         possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just
                         assume they have no cyber presence.

                          

                         Anonymous' Weapons

                         Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous'
                         actions against criminal cartels has yet to be seen.
                         Anonymous' only ability to combat cartels lay in
                         information operations, mainly disseminating
                         sensitive information on cartels and propagating
                         anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced
                         websites in Mexico you mean so far and that we know
                         of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
                         cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The
                         significance of a targeted information operations
                         campaign by technically elite individuals can not be
                         overlooked should not be underestimated. Cartels
                         view main stream media outlets and social media
                         blogs as such a threat to their operations, that
                         they have continued to target journalists and
                         bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas
                         was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly,
                         on the body of a blogger. The message threatened any
                         users who denounce cartels on blogging websites.
                         getting repetitive here, and it's not really
                         addressing the subheading

                         As stated earlier, any information connected to the
                         internet risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is
                         ample reason to suggest Anonymous is capable of
                         possessing information they threaten to release. By
                         releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
                         Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of
                         those individuals. Anonymous's ability to
                         disseminate sensitive information is limited by what
                         is available via the Internet. Government computers
                         connected to the Internet should always be
                         considered a possibility of an attack. However, as
                         with the compartmentalized nature of the US
                         governments computer networks, information available
                         to Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy
                         to acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This
                         isn't clear at all

                          

                         Cartel's Defense

                                     A counter response to the video? by the
                         cartels has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous'
                         claims of a kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest
                         Los Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by
                         hackers so... how has there not been a counter
                         response? also this undermines your statements above
                         about how Anonymous is soley internet based, and
                         underlines the vulnerabilities of associated
                         members. How did they find teh Anonymous member? The
                         answer to that could very well give you some
                         indication to the technical ability of the cartels .
                         As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
                         wide web , the cartels will face a number of
                         challenges which rarely are posed for them Again,
                         how do you know? The USG has whole agencies
                         dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can
                         assume (and we have good intel indicating that) they
                         are working on disrupting the cartels.. Hackers
                         threatening cartels, can operate in any region of
                         the world. Personal information including locations
                         is only available if a hacker chooses to divulge it
                         or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
                         figure it out. Hackers don't only work for
                         Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with
                         their online enemy, if they can physically reach out
                         to them. Or start employing hackers of their own
                         under their payroll? Stranger things have happened,
                         Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                                     Cartels have been known to coerce the
                         services of Mexican citizens with a technical
                         background. Recruiting the help of computer science
                         majors through personal threats has been reported in
                         the past where? What cartels? reported where?. 
                         Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence
                         and drug trafficking, they will likely need the
                         assistance of technical experts to help combat any
                         threat by computer hackers.  While identifying
                         bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it
                         is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any
                         hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
                         enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more
                         technical experience and resources than cartels,
                         struggle to find hackers through investigations. A)
                         How do you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the
                         guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that
                         not all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                                     In order to compete with an online foe,
                         cartels will likely continue counter tactics they
                         are most familiar with, brute force. Cartels are
                         still capable of their HUMINT operations within
                         Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't
                         be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
                         communities will likely be targeted and interrogated
                         by cartel members.  Narco banners and public display
                         of violence will likely continue to be used to scare
                         online media into submission i'm not really seeing
                         the online media-international hacking group
                         connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
                         inflict harm, is something computer hackers have
                         unlikely encountered before in their life. Whether
                         the fear of cartel violence softens the confidence
                         of Anonymous will remain to be seen until cartels
                         are able to seek out and capture members of the
                         hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the
                         collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off any
                         inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

               --

               Sean Noonan

               Tactical Analyst

               Office: +1 512-279-9479

               Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

               Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

               www.stratfor.com

           --

           Sean Noonan

           Tactical Analyst

           Office: +1 512-279-9479

           Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

           Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

           www.stratfor.com

       --

       Sean Noonan

       Tactical Analyst

       Office: +1 512-279-9479

       Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

       Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

       www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-25 02:47:49",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1003423_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1003511,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Yes, in response to your first question. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Colby Martin\" <colby.martin@stratfor.com>
   To: analysts@stratfor.com
   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:47:49 PM
   Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels

   Sean, just to be clear

   Your point is that Anonymous hasn't mattered?  Is your argument that
   hackers haven't mattered either?  because if Anonymous is a mob of hackers
   as you argue, how haven't they mattered to their targets?  what about all
   the money spent fighting them?  and as Tristan just pointed out - how
   about HBGary Federal?  He said the CEO's SSN and address were posted on
   Twitter.  What about all the sensitive emails that were lost?  We have no
   way of knowing what was in those emails, or how they are being used to
   make money at the expense of HBGary.  I have always agreed that they
   haven't reached a level of threat to the US, but that surely doesn't mean
   they won't.  And there are quite a few countries, organizations, and
   people below that rather high standard who could not withstand an attack,
   including an email purge of personal emails onto the web. 

   On 10/24/11 7:33 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     As far as Aurora, I haven't followed it closely. Did they ever identify
     the attackers or number of attackers? I thought the target set was the
     only thing that led people to believe the Chinese government was
     responsible.

     2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
     responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating cyber
     intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case HUMINT is
     just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT capabilities does not
     indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers. NSA may have there own
     department for tracking hackers but it does not make it SIGINT.

     Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

     Wikipedia provides an indepth explanation on SIGINT . But in short,
     SIGINT is the capability in exploiting signals provided by communication
     devices, and what can be obtained by exploiting the signals. Combining
     computer network operations and SIGINT is innaccurate, because while
     SIGINT may be used with other intelligence disciplines in order to
     identify a hacker, it is not necessary and is no more related than any
     other intel discipline. SIGINT could help you identify a computer
     devices (not the operator) emitting a signal (wifi), and cryptanalysis,
     which is also separate from SIGINT but often used in conjunction, could
     help in providing methods to decrypt messages over a network, but SIGINT
     wouldn't obtain those messages.

     In order to exploit computer network operations, the operators involved
     are specifically trained in computer science disciplines and
     technologies tailored specifically for computer activity.

     NSA also is the primary agency for cryptanalysis. Because of
     technological demands of SIGINT and cryptanalysis, NSA has enormous
     resources in R&D, so I can see why the USG would move some CNO to NSA.
     But their SIGINT capabilities are not indicators of CNO capabilities.

     Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary labor
     for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are discussing
     operations on the scale of causing physical damage to extremely
     sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of a cyber attack that
     matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not mattered.  You chose the most
     prolific example of a cyber attack (which the whole operation consisted
     mainly outside of the cyber attack itself). Anything that falls short of
     this doesn't matter? Define what matters. None of anonymous' attacks
     have physically damaged secret Iranian nuclear facilities, but I think
     you are downplaying too much the significance of exposing corporate
     secrets, halting businesses' revenues, and embarrassing State actors by
     defacing their websites.

     On 10/24/11 5:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

       On 10/24/11 5:07 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

         On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

           1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already The USG
           arrested 10 Russian spies last year, are you willing to say
           foreign intel is not capable of conducting espionage undetected?
           No, of course not.  But I also would not argue that the SVR is so
           good to be immune to detection, as you are arguing with hackers. 
           I'm saying they are more detectable than you think.  There is no
           such thing as truly anonymous.  Everythign leaves a trail.  Will
           that trail in every instance lead to a single individual? no.  but
           it can lead to a place, an organization, and often, an
           individual. 

           2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
           responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating
           cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this
           case HUMINT is just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT
           capabilities does not indicate its capabilities in tracking
           hackers. NSA may have there own department for tracking hackers
           but it does not make it SIGINT.

           Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

           The question is if the attack is high priority enough.  Many
           people assume there is no attribution because there is no
           response, but I don't think that is accurate.  Many people say
           this, because no attribution is one reason for no response.  Yes,
           they do, and if they think that is the primary reason for lack of
           response, then I think they are wrong. 

           3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new
           laptop and start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack
           involves much more than a recently bought laptop.  In the same way
           there is an attack cycle for a terrorist attack or crime, there is
           one for a cyber attack.  A very simple attack may be as hard to
           trace as a nearly-random mugging in the dark in a neighborhood
           with much more serious crime and no CCTV cameras.  A more
           complicated attack, however, involves pre-operational
           surveillance, developing exploits, developing programs and code,
           gaining access, exploiting that, and carrying out an attack. 
           Discovering exploits and writing code can be done entirely
           offline, out of sight of law enforcement or intel agencies.
           Pre-operational surveillance and gaining access (the point of the
           exploit you write offline) would fit in my example. The point is,
           if you don't link your computer to identifiable information, you
           remain anonymous. Just like people use certain methods to build
           IEDs, people use certain mehtods to design programs and code for
           cyber attacks.  Over time, those methods become identifiable and
           more and more attributable. This is, for example, how AURORA is
           linked back to the Chinese.  and very specific Chinese, I may add.
           Being connected or unconnected doesn't matter, eventually you have
           to use what you develop, or copy from someone, and all of those
           things can be analyzed.   And that takes time, giving more time
           for your exposure Exposure comes from network activity with the
           target, a lot of the pre-operational phase of an attack can occur
           without network activity. Look at everything that went into
           Stuxnet as a great example, that couldn't be done with one person
           with a new laptop. Writing the code and hacking was just a small
           part of necessary labor for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't
           think we are discussing operations on the scale of causing
           physical damage to extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is
           an example of a cyber attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so
           far has not mattered.   All of this activity provides activity and
           evidence which helps for attribution.  Of course it is always
           possible to develop an attack, just like any other operation, that
           even the best law enforcement and national intelligence agencies
           have trouble or cannot attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that
           it's very difficult for someone to successfully use Anonymous as a
           cover and have NSA, GHQ, MID, Aman, etc, be unable to attribute
           it.  How do you know if NSA or GHQ is effective in identifying
           hackers?I don't, but I'm confident they are far better than you
           are allowing for.    They may not choose to cover it if it is
           small scale crime, however. 
           On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored
             cyber warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing
             that, since you can conduct a cyber attack without associating
             with a hacker group and still deny / cover actions on behalf of
             the State. An individual attacking US computer assets from
             China, may be working by himself or on behalf of the Chinese
             government, but unless the US has other intel on the Chinese
             government's cyber warfare activities in order to corroborate
             there is little capability to distinguish.

             It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
             operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets
             from SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual
             responsible for hacking State run servers. In the past, I have
             turned to SIGINT organizations for collections on computer
             related material, but this was due to the US being behind in
             cyber warfare, and not knowing where to assign responsibility.
             However, this has changed dramatically in the last couple of
             years.

             Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As
             an extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go
             to a Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the
             online activity to something revealing (accessing personal email
             accounts, tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop,
             etc..), and begin hacking government email accounts then never
             use the laptop again. Unless LEA could get an accurate
             description of my appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible
             security cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

             Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to
             these enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied
             to specific computer-related activities because of the
             difficulty in identifying individuals.

             I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown,
             would be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a
             common participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a
             State? Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that
             State agent organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter
             buddies, what signs could a LEA look for to distinguish?

             On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

               In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a
               bit)

               1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything
               actually harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't,
               but i'm very doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first
               real case where they could do some minor damage--to individual
               people, not not to an organization or anything that would come
               as a serious or strategic threat. 

               2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is
               actually pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as
               a cover, but that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could
               probably still be attributed if important enough to those
               agencies.  The recent attack on Sony actually brings this
               issue up- Whoever is calling themselves anonymous denies they
               did it.  And keep in mind how much they have claimed an
               publicized attacks in the past, even before they were carried
               out.  The attack on the Playstation Network was more
               sophisticated than anonymous' usual work (though potentially
               coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that distracted
               Sony's IT security).  But whoever did it, again, no real
               damage came of it.  Congress is holding hearings over data
               security, but this is no different than the OC groups stealing
               your credit card information.  LE will go after them, have
               some success, but the threat is not that large. 
               On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

                 I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to
                 have a broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no
                 nothing, or almost nothing about what this group is and the
                 threat it poses. Reviewing their list of attacks
                 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in
                 most of the cases, they are the a**gooda** guys, sort of a
                 Robin Hood of the internet . The interesting thing when it
                 comes to their interactions with the cartels is the dubious
                 role they play: at the same time they can be fighting crime
                 by revealing cartel members/supporters, but they can also
                 put lives in risk.

                 However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
                 Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth,
                 can conduct a cyber attack under a**Anonymousa** is
                 worrisome.
                 (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

                 If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
                 websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to
                 know more about these guys. Who they are? What are they
                 interested in? How they operate? Who they have targeted so
                 far? How can I defend myself from them? In what countries
                 are they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use
                 them to achieve any particular goal?

                 On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                   nice.  i still think the central focus, and what
                   everything else can build off of, is that Anonymous
                   doesn't know the threat they pose to innocent people
                   caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing on
                   journalists or taxi drivers they show little understanding
                   of the situation.  This has long term implications in not
                   just Mexico.  They don't consider the consequences of
                   their actions and they act without understanding the
                   environment.  It was the same when they released
                   information on the Sony Playstation network to protest
                   Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

                   On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                     Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of
                     discussing possible cartel responses, the focus is on
                     what type of threat Anonymous can pose to cartels. The
                     video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing
                     personal information on cartels as well as states a
                     member had been kidnapped. I could not find any sources
                     outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being
                     kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous
                     Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be
                     an individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the
                     Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is
                     speculation.

                     Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
                     distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on
                     government websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the
                     Internet with a statements denouncing Mexicoa**s
                     criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked
                     individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on October
                     10? With the most recent video release, Anonymous makes
                     bold threats towards the criminal cartels in Mexico.
                     Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers,
                     police, politicians, and journalists who collude with
                     criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas
                     release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
                     consequences. In the Anonymousa** video, this coming
                     November 5th was mentioned as a day cartels could expect
                     Anonymousa** reaction if their demands of releasing a
                     kidnapped member are not met. The potential of conflict
                     between Mexicoa**s criminal cartels and hackers,
                     presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of
                     cartels lashing out at online bloggers, but I havena**t
                     seen any reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches
                     from hackers before. 

                     What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                         a*-c-    Anonymous would not pose a direct physical
                     security threat to Mexican cartels.
                         a*-c-    Anonymous' power base is the ability to
                     exploit online media
                         a*-c-    Anonymous hackers do not have to be in
                     Mexico to lash out at cartels

                     While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to
                     pose a threat
                         a*-c-    It is unknown if Anonymousa**s claims to
                     possess identifiable information on cartel members
                         a*-c-    It is unknown what information Anonymous
                     could acquire on cartels
                         a*-c-    Bank accounts, any online transactions or
                     communications, identifiable information on cartels
                     members have to be considered in the realm of
                     possibilities for
                                 Anonymous
                                 o    Anonymous has demonstrated ita**s
                     ability to reveal illicit online activity (child
                     pornography rings)

                     Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
                     ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
                     result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
                     limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting
                     in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any
                     possible retribution. They may not even know the impact
                     of any online assault of cartels.
                         a*-c-    Revealing information on taxi drivers and
                     journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not
                     understand some of these individuals are forced to
                     collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are
                     often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
                     halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals
                     will not have a significant impact on cartel            
                           operations. Politicans have been accused of
                     working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor)
                     before, however there has yet to be any consequences
                     from this.
                         a*-c-    Anonymous hackers may not understand the
                     extent cartels are willing to go protect their
                     operations.
                             o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                             o    Cartels have reached out to the computer
                     science community before, coercing computer science
                     majors into working for them.
                             o    This provides the cartels with the
                     possibility of discovering hackers within Mexico.

                      

                     On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                       Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the
                       idea but there are several issues to address and fix
                       here.

                       These are the bullets of my main analytical concern
                       with the discussion:

                           a*-c-    we don't know who got kidnapped or why.
                       that's fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                           a*-c-    \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                       difference between stealing bank records from
                       government computers and overloading www.loszetas.com
                       main page.
                           a*-c-    There's no thought out process of what
                       sort of information could anon have on the cartels.
                       What kind of info is kept online and accessible to
                       potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
                       identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
                       politicians and businessmen who need to worry about
                       what anon is going to be saying. Think about why the
                       bloggers and media were killed in previous instances.
                       Was it because they revealed operational details,
                       because they acted as informants, because they exposed
                       links with officials or because they somehow sullied
                       the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
                       information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                           a*-c-    Once you identify this info - think about
                       if anon can realistically access it and disseminate it
                       so it causes a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have
                       any intelligence capacity except for the technical
                       ability by a very small number of its members to
                       infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal
                       information. Now what kind of information would a
                       cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
                       internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
                       information be found? Government databases? Once we
                       know what kind of information is accessible, we can
                       also know more about the consequences of
                       dissemination.
                           a*-c-    What's the IT capacity of a cartel?
                       Sufficient to trace back attacks? If it's not, there
                       risks to be a lot of killings done by people who may
                       not understand the difference between an anon hacker
                       and a blogger.

                       On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                         wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                         -------- Original Message --------

                          Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                             Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                             From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                         Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                               To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                         you've got some of the issues here, but this is
                         going to need a lot more work

                         You need to lay out:

                         a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your
                         trigger section is unclear
                         b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence
                         is, and therefore their vulnerabilities and
                         capabilities
                         c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high
                         security anything
                         d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to
                         kill anyone who breaches their systems or exposes
                         their connections

                         I also just want to point out that we have
                         reasonable reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very
                         least has some significant levels of sophistication
                         in their online presence, to include the use of
                         cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
                         is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also
                         conduct business online, in a protected fashion.

                         Karen Hooper
                         Latin America Analyst
                         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                         c: 512.750.7234
                         STRATFOR
                         www.stratfor.com
                         On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                         On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                         --
                         Sean Noonan
                         Tactical Analyst
                         Office: +1 512-279-9479
                         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
                         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
                         www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-25 03:18:15",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1003511_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1004860,"Re: anybody have questions for former Spanish PM Aznar
","   Uh, how about a party for stratfor in his (or one of his friends')
   mediterranean villa?

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Michael Wilson <michael.wilson@stratfor.com>
   Sender: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:32:32 -0600
   To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: anybody have questions for former Spanish PM Aznar
   can i crash on his couch?

   On 11/16/10 3:26 PM, Bayless Parsley wrote:

     can you just tell him \"good call on blaming ETA\" for me?

     On 11/16/10 3:18 PM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

       he's teaching our class today

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com
","2010-11-16 22:33:58",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1004860_re-anybody-have-questions-for-former-spanish-pm-aznar-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1006351,"Re: Former Spanish PM Azner
","   At least 20 camps? Pretty impressive. That's more than I've seen in OS,
   where so far all they've been focusing on is the Guasdalito camp where
   Cubillas was allegedly at, but it's quite possible all those former
   etarras are spread out all over the place. I would he's a lot more open
   about heaping criticisms on Chavez since I heard him speak at Trinity back
   in 2004, where he referred to him as \"an interesting man.\" My brother has
   a picture of himself with Aznar at that event. Every time I look at it I
   really do think, it's always his hair that I notice.....

   -----------------
   Reginald Thompson

   Cell: (011) 504 8990-7741

   OSINT
   Stratfor

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 5:26:21 PM
   Subject: Former Spanish PM Azner

   Wow, SeA+-or presidente is hardcore.. Way more extreme than even the  
   Israeli officials I've heard speak. He honestly believes that all  
   terrorists are the same and that nothing short of total war can defeat  
   them. He is adamantly against any kind of negotiation with terrorists  
   and criticizes France, Germany and others heavily in this regard. He  
   attributes French and German \"weakness\" on counterterrorism to their  
   larger Muslim populations. He said OBL's statement on retaking Andaluz  
   is all he heard and the Germans and French just didn't get it. He says  
   poverty has zero connection to terrorism and that developmental aid  
   policies are useless. On ETA, he said the ceasefires are just time  
   buying measures, nothing more. In Catalonia he says the regional govt  
   encourages Muslim immigration from Pakistan, Algeria, etc because they  
   can more easily linguistically integrate them as opposed to Spanish-
   speaking immigrants. This is also where the most radical imams are in  
   the country. He also said ETA has at least 20 camps in Venezuela and  
   ggat farc and eta work with each other in training l, weapons, etc.

   Overall, he's very ideological and hardline. Good reminder of the  
   personal role in poltics (though he also paid for that and is  
   embarassed by his loss)

   Also, great hair.

   Sent from my iPhone
","2010-11-17 00:35:40",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1006351_re-former-spanish-pm-azner-.html","reginald.thompson@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1009016,"[alpha] Occupy Wall Street (DHS analysis)
","3","2011-10-25 18:04:51",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1009016_-alpha-occupy-wall-street-dhs-analysis-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com","attach/13/13637_DHS IP Special.pdf"
1009309,"Re: Research Request - Europe/MIL - Fighter Jet Market
","   Here is my summary of Gripen and its place in Saab.  More information is
   in the attached document.

   Military aeronautics sales account for 9,183 million Swedish Kroners
   (about 1.3 billion dollars), or about 38% of Saab's total business, and
   Gripen fighters are the core of this.  Gripen has sold a total of about 50
   aircraft overseas since it started production in the mid 90's.  The
   company has made a big push for large sales in Brazil and India, and
   without one or both of these contracts coming through it seems unlikely
   that Gripen will continue as a major player past 2012.  The Gripen NG is
   the newest model, and has yet to find a buyer.  The JSF and Eurofighter
   have too much of the market claimed between them, and the natural clients
   for the Gripen fighters, second-tier powers looking to upgrade their air
   capabilities, are mostly facing financial constraints. When Norway and the
   Netherlands chose the JSF in the last year it was a big blow to Gripen. 
   The following Bloomberg article is an excellent summary of their problems:
   http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&tkr=BA:US&sid=a48CogGIxMy0

   Marko Papic wrote:

     Yeah... the \"born of jets\" is just a tag line ;)

     ----- Original Message -----
     From: \"Nate Hughes\" <hughes@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
     Cc: \"Kristen Cooper\" <kristen.cooper@stratfor.com>, \"Rami Naser\"
     <rami.naser@stratfor.com>, \"Matthew Powers\"
     <matthew.powers@stratfor.com>, \"Antonia Colibasanu\"
     <colibasanu@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 1:56:43 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada
     Central
     Subject: Re: Research Request - Europe/MIL - Fighter Jet Market

     heh. then we need a first look at Saab the corporate entity. Ignore any
     news about the automotive arm.

     Marko Papic wrote:

       Saab has not owned the car wing since 1990.

       ----- Original Message -----
       From: \"Nate Hughes\" <hughes@stratfor.com>
       To: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
       Cc: \"Kristen Cooper\" <kristen.cooper@stratfor.com>, \"Rami Naser\"
       <rami.naser@stratfor.com>, \"Matthew Powers\"
       <matthew.powers@stratfor.com>, \"Antonia Colibasanu\"
       <colibasanu@stratfor.com>
       Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 1:45:38 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada
       Central
       Subject: Re: Research Request - Europe/MIL - Fighter Jet Market

       Let's take a closer look at Saab as a corporate entity. Did GM just
       own the Saab car brand/the automotive arm of Saab? Saab's automotive
       troubles are just one element of Saab as an industrial entity, just
       like the Gripen is. Let's map it out and get a sense of the
       overarching corporate status of Saab as an entity.

       Marko Papic wrote:

         Thanks guys... I will hit you up with questions if I have them.

         I am going to do the piece on Gripen then, probably for tmrw.

         ----- Original Message -----
         From: \"Kristen Cooper\" <kristen.cooper@stratfor.com>
         To: \"Nate Hughes\" <hughes@stratfor.com>
         Cc: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>, \"Rami Naser\"
         <rami.naser@stratfor.com>, \"Matthew Powers\"
         <matthew.powers@stratfor.com>, \"Antonia Colibasanu\"
         <colibasanu@stratfor.com>
         Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 1:09:38 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada
         Central
         Subject: Re: Research Request - Europe/MIL - Fighter Jet Market

         nate and marko - attached and below is the research on the first
         tranche of questions. Much thanks to Antonia, Matthew and Rami for
         helping pull info on this.

         Matthew is currently looking into the specifics of each company as
         requested in the second part of the research and Rami is taking the
         more detailed look into the global fighter jet market.

         hit me up with any questions - kristen

         Contents

         i. Details of proposed price, technology transfer and indigenous
         production

         a. France - Dassault Aviationn SA's (AM.FR)

                     b. US - Boeing Co. (BA) F-18

                     c. Sweden - Saab Gripen NG

         ii. Saab's economic situation

         iii. Gripen sales and tenders

                     a. Gripen NG tenders

                     b. Gripens in service

          

          

          

         Brazil's Embraer is looking to purchase 36 fighter planes under the
         country's proposed FX-2 program.

          

         i. Three Potential Deals:

          

         a. France - Dassault Aviationn SA's (AM.FR)

          

           o Deal for 36 Rafale fighters
           o est. pricing ranges from $82 to $130 million price per unit (not
             including weapons and support)
                o ~$4 to 7 billion for aircraft sales alone - est. $10
                  billion in total sale
           o Sept. 10 - a Brazilian official speaking to AFP on condition of
             anonymity said Sarkozy wrote to da Silva promising \"unrestricted
             access to technology\" in the Dassault offer - this statement
             prompted issuing of similar statements by both US and Saab
             representatives
           o Sept. 29 - According to statement by Embraer's VP, Rafales deal
             woud be for \"flight-ready planes\" (limiting local industry
             participation)

          

          

         Rafale Fighter Deal:

           o Sept. 8 - France has struck a landmark outline accord to sell 36
             Rafale fighters for between four and seven billion dollars to
             Brazil, potentially the first foreign customer for the expensive
             jet, officials said.
           o A Dassault spokesman said the company hopes to finalize the sale
             in 2010
           o Throughout its tender process, Brazil has emphasized that full
             technology-sharing took priority over cost.

          

         French-Brazil Strategic Relationship:

           o Lula said that his country wanted closer military ties with
             France. \"We are definitively consolidating a strategic
             partnership we started in 2005,\" Lula said in a joint news
             conference with Sarkozy in Brasilia.
           o The deal adds to 10 billion dollars' worth of agreements Brazil
             has already struck with France to buy five submarines (one to be
             converted to nuclear power) and 50 military transport
             helicopters.
           o Brazil's only aircraft carrier is a mothballed vessel bought
             from France in 2000.
           o France is also to buy about 10 military transport aircraft
             Brazil's air force plans to build with Embraer, the national
             aircraft manufacturer.
           o The military transport planes that Brazil is selling, the
             KC-390, are designed to carry lighter loads than the delayed
             Airbus A400 heavy military transport plane France is committed
             to.

          

          

         French Company:

           o France would back Dassault Aviation's bid for the contract to
             build 36 fighter planes for Brazil's air force, the official
             said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of palace
             rules.
           o The deal would be key for Dassault, which has not yet had a
             foreign buyer for its Rafale.
           o The Rafale is one of three planes in competition for the
             Brazilian contract, along with Chicago-based Boeing's F-18 Super
             Hornet and Saab's Gripen NG.
           o French daily Le Monde, which participated in the interview,
             quoted the Brazilian leader as suggesting the French bid had a
             \"comparative advantage\" over those of its rivals.

          

         Brazil's Request:

           o Brazil's air force has not given a price tag for the 36 jets,
             which it hopes to have delivered by 2014. The total number of
             jets ordered could also increase up to 100.
           o Agencia Estado news service said it could be between $2.2
             billion and $2.5billion.

          

          

         b. US - Boeing Co. (BA) F-18

           o Aug. 10 - Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notifies
             Congress of potential sale to Government of Brazil including:

         .        28  F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft

         .        8    F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft

         .        72  F414-GE-400 installed engines

         .        host of spare parts and munitions

          

         Estimated value of total sale = $7 billion

         ~ $90 million per unit for the F/A-18s

          

           o Sept. 9 - US Embassy in Brazil issues statement:

          

              o US govt. has issued a final approval on transfer of \"all
                necessary and advanced technologies associated with the U.S.
                Government's offer of the F/A-18 Super Hornet\"

          

              o \"Boeing's multi-billion dollar offset package to be invested
                directly into the Brazilian aerospace industry will transfer
                technology related to military design and production, provide
                autonomy in key areas of program support, and develop a broad
                Brazilian aerospace industry beyond just fighter aircraft,
                through direct involvement with the world's largest aerospace
                company.\"

          

         *Note: the US government's notification to Congress of a possible
         sale to Brazil of F-18s states that \"offsets agreements associated
         with this proposed sale are expected,\" it does not mention either
         advanced technology transfer or local assembly, as claimed in the
         statement made by the US Embassy in Brazil.

          

          

          

         c. Sweden - Saab Gripen NG

          

           o Tender for 36 Gripen NGs

         ~ $60 million per unit

          

           o Sept. 29 - According to a statement from Embraer's VP, Saab is
             offering a \"pre-production deal giving Brazil opportunity to
             develop from scratch-knowledge of the plane\" - and that the NGs
             would have \"important locally produced components\" - and the
             development of the jet would bring \"important technological
             benefits\"

          

          

         From Saab's NG tender proposal to Brazil -

          

          - Transfer of Technology

         The Transfer of Technology (ToT) programme will guarantee full
         involvement in future capability development and maximize Brazilian
         industrial autonomy through the transfer of unique and highly
         advanced competencies.

         The ToT will include:

           o Design, development and integration of hardware, avionics,
             software and systems on the Gripen NG
           o Transfer of Advanced Technologies and key High-Tech competencies
             for example Sensor Fusion, Low-Observability (LO) and Stealth.

         Saab guarantees unrivalled access to all levels of technology,
         including full access to Gripen NG source codes.

          - Offset

         The proposal will deliver Offset equal to the contract value. The
         Offset programme will transfer unique and advanced technologies and
         know-how to appropriate Brazilian industrial and institutional
         parties with the objective of developing national capabilities.

         - Support solution

         The logistics concept is designed to meet the requirements of
         the Brazilian Air Force and makes maximum usage of existing
         Brazilian infrastructure.

         The training programme utilizes the existing infra-structure
         together with synthetic training aids and the Gripen system in order
         to maximize the training benefit.

         - Partnership

         COMAER and Brazilian industry would become partners with the Swedish
         Air Force and Saab in the design, development and integration of
         future technology programmes for the Gripen NG.

         Early Brazilian involvement in the Gripen NG design and development
         will give the Brazilian Air Force and industry unrivalled access to
         all levels of technology now and for the future.

         *Note: According to a recent interview with Jane's analyst, Craig
         Cafferty -

         \"While Saab could offer good industrial participation and
         technology, \"some of the key components included in the Gripen NG
         such as the engine and AESA radar are not made by Saab or a Swedish
         company thereby making full technology transfer impossible.\"

         The Gripen's engine is made by US company General Electric, and
         therefore subject to US export controls, while the advanced
         active-array, multi-targeting radar is made by Italian firm Selex.\"

          

          

          

         ii. Saab's economic situation

          

         1.      Saab - Gripen history (not nec related, but just in case you
         need it) - see here:
         http://www.gripen.com/en/GripenFighter/TheGripenFighter.htm

         2.      Saab problems starting in 2008: GM decided to sell Saab this
         year due to financial problems. They are still in talks and there is
         certain that there is pressure on the future of Saab... with all
         that it can mean for its financial stability. The Swedish government
         has announced (Jan. 2009) plans to provide up to $3.19 billion in
         credit guarantees and emergency loans to Saab and Volvo, which Ford
         Motor Co. put up for sale last month in a bid to raise additional
         funds. (http://www.thelocal.se/16808/20090109/) That's all I could
         find on the guarantees part.

         Last details on the deal:

           o The buy-out of Saab Automobile by the Koenigsegg Group hangs in
             the balance after co-owner Baard Eker states the company could
             withdraw if business is not concluded in the next few days.
             According to an article in business daily Dagens Industri the
             deal is at risk of caving in. \"If things aren't in place by
             September 30, then we are out,\" Eker told Norwegian newspaper
             Dagens Naeringsliv. They include negotiations with the European
             Investment Bank (EIB) over a loan of around four billion Swedish
             crowns as well as discussions with Sweden's National Debt Office
             (Riksga:lden) to secure the EIB loan. Saab intend to use the
             money to develop new technology in the areas of environment and
             security. - http://www.thelocal.se/22312/20090926/
           o GM has agreed to put money in to assure it gets rid of Saab -
             http://www.thelocal.se/22098/20090915/
           o In August GM talked about the sale to Koenigsegg Group. But the
             problem is that Koenigsegg must prepare for 4 billion kronor or
             500 million dollars to take over. The report says that Beijing
             Automotive Industry Holdings, BAIC has written a letter of
             memorandum with Koenigsegg to become a small owner with capital.
              http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90884/6755109.html

          

         Figures:

         With the collapse of the auto market, it has become a particularly
         weak division, selling less than 94,000 cars in 2008, down from a
         peak of 133,000 in 2006.
         http://gm-volt.com/2009/02/20/saab-becomes-independent-from-gm-and-declares-bankruptcy/

         Under GM's stewardship, Saab rarely posted a profit and last year
         lost 3.0 billion kronor ($496.9 million at the time).

         Saab's financial woes eased a bit Jan. 17 when a Swedish court
         approved an application to write down 75 percent of the automaker's
         debts -- previously some 10 billion kronor.
         http://www.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20090618-149231.html

          

         Nice talk on how sweet Saab is if it gets the deal:

         \"The Swedish government and the Saab motor company are 100 percent
         committed to making the technology transfer,\" Swedish State
         Secretary for Defense Haakan Jevrell said at a press conference,
         accompanied by a Saab representative.
         (http://www.thelocal.se/22150/20090918/)

          

          

         iii. Gripen NG Sales

          

         a. It appears that no nation has purchased the Gripen NG model since
         Saab began trying to make sales in 2008.

         :

         As of early 2009, Saab claims to have Gripen tenders for:

         - Denmark

         - India

         - Romania

         - Brazil

         - Switzerland

          

         In addition, Saab has responded to requests for information from
         Bulgaria, Croatia, and the Netherlands.

          

          

         The Gripen NG was being considered by the Netherlands and Norway,
         but these nations have elected to go with the JSF.

          

         Denmark is still considering an offer for the Gripen NG.

          

         Gripen NG's are being considered for a huge purchase by the Indian
         airforce (100+ aircraft), but no decision is likely for some time.

          

         Brazil is the only other country that is currently considering the
         NG.

         a. Gripens currently in service:

          

         Gripen is in service with the Swedish, Czech Republic, Hungarian and
         South African Air Forces and has also been ordered by Thailand. The
         UK Empire Test Pilots' School (ETPS) is also operating Gripen as its
         advanced fast jet platform for test pilots worldwide.

           o Gripen was declared operational in the Swedish Air Force in
             1997, and 204 aircraft, including 28 two seaters, have been
             delivered.

          

           o Gripen is in full operational service with the Czech Republic
             Air Force, which has taken delivery of all of its 14 aircraft
             (12 single-seat and 2 two-seaters) to meet its national,
             European and NATO defence needs.

          

           o Gripen is also in full operational service with the Hungarian
             Air Force, which has taken delivery of all of its 14 aircraft
             (12 single-seat and 2 two-seaters) to meet its national,
             European and NATO needs.

          

           o South Africa, Gripen's first export customer, has ordered a
             fleet of 26 aircraft (9 two-seat and 17 single seat aircraft) to
             replace its existing front-line aircraft. Deliveries started in
             2008 and will be completed by 2012.

          

           o The United Kingdom's (UK) Empire Test Pilots' School (ETPS) is
             also operating Gripen as its advanced fast jet platform for test
             pilots worldwide.

          

           o In October 2007, the government of Thailand approved the
             procurement of Gripen fighters to replace the Royal Thai Air
             Force's ageing F-5 fleet, and in February 2008 Thailand and
             Sweden signed contracts for the supply of the initial six Gripen
             aircraft for the Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF) with aircraft
             delivered during 2011.

          

          

          

          

          

          

          

          

          

          

          

          

          

          

          

          

          

          

          

          

          

                                    Sources:

                              Gripen NG for Brazil

         Gripen offers Brazil a complete solution. Gripen NG is the world's
         most technologically advanced multi-role fighter aircraft with built
         in Net centric warfare (NCW) technologies and capabilities developed
         specifically for Brazil.

          

         The Gripen NG for Brazil in short:

           o A powerful and proven engine
           o AESA radar
           o Advanced Communication systems
           o Tactical Data Link
           o Supercruise
           o Advanced Electronic warfare
           o Strategic reach
           o Advanced Weapons Capacity

Why Brazil should choose Gripen

           o Gripen NG is the world's most technologically advanced
             multi-role fighter aircraft with built in Net centric warfare
             (NCW) technologies and capabilities developed specifically for
             Brazil.
           o Gripen will meet or exceed every operational requirement raised
             by the Brazilian Air Force in all roles - Air to Air Fighter
             BVR/WVR, Air to Surface land and sea, and recce.
           o Gripen will provide exceptional autonomous multi and swing role
             capability in normal and hostile FOB operations, and act as a
             perfect force multiplier.
           o Gripen will, over life, have a substantially lower real Life
             Cycle Cost than its nearest single engined competitor, and is
             able to operate at a fraction of the cost of its twin engined
             competitors.
           o Gripen NG is the only option for Brazil delivering next
             generation technical and military capabilities.
           o Gripen NG will allow Brazil to become a significant partner in
             the development programme and become a platform for future
             technology programmes.
           o In combination with the Industrial Cooperation program, Gripen's
             program for FAB, Brazilian Defence and industrial establishment
             will make Brazil by 2020 completely independent of the need to
             purchase combat aircraft from other countries and make it an
             exporter of aircraft like Sweden.

          

Operational capability

         As a Next Generation multi-role fighter Gripen NG has the
         operational range, payload and built-in Net Centric Warfare (NCW)
         capability to meet all the roles as defined by the Brazilian Air
         Force; both national and regional expeditionary. Brazil's NCW
         capability will be significantly enhanced by operating the Gripen NG
         in combination with the Embraer E-99 ERIEYE system.

Advanced Weapons System

         Gripen NG has a fully integrated sensor suite with total weapon
         flexibility and is able to carry weapons sourced from suppliers
         worldwide. Survivability is assured through a balance between low
         radar, Infra-Red and visible signatures and a highly advanced
         modular Electronic Warfare and Self-Protection system.

Support solution

         The logistics concept is designed to meet the requirements of
         the Brazilian Air Force and makes maximum usage of existing
         Brazilian infrastructure.

         The training programme utilizes the existing infra-structure
         together with synthetic training aids and the Gripen system in order
         to maximize the training benefit.

Partnership

         COMAER and Brazilian industry would become partners with the Swedish
         Air Force and Saab in the design, development and integration of
         future technology programmes for the Gripen NG.

         Early Brazilian involvement in the Gripen NG design and development
         will give the Brazilian Air Force and industry unrivalled access to
         all levels of technology now and for the future.

Offset

         The proposal will deliver Offset equal to the contract value. The
         Offset programme will transfer unique and advanced technologies and
         know-how to appropriate Brazilian industrial and institutional
         parties with the objective of developing national capabilities.

Production and Maintenance

         The commitment to Brazilian aerospace includes the option for
         manufacturing of Gripen NG parts and assemblies and Gripen NG Final
         assembly in Brazil.

         The maintenance concept is tailored to meet the requirements and
         capabilities of the Brazilian Industry and the FAB through:

           o Establishment of a Gripen NG maintenance centre in
             Brazil ensuring national autonomy
           o Extensive usage of existing Brazilian infra-structure securing
             cost savings and ensuring commonality

Transfer of Technology

         The Transfer of Technology (ToT) programme will guarantee full
         involvement in future capability development and maximize Brazilian
         industrial autonomy through the transfer of unique and highly
         advanced competencies.

         The ToT will include:

           o Design, development and integration of hardware, avionics,
             software and systems on the Gripen NG
           o Transfer of Advanced Technologies and key High-Tech competencies
             for example Sensor Fusion, Low-Observability (LO) and Stealth.

         Saab guarantees unrivalled access to all levels of technology,
         including full access to Gripen NG source codes.

Continued Enhancement

         Gripen Next Generation (NG) is a considerably enhanced version of
         the already proven and in-service Gripen C/D multi-role fighter.

         Designed for combat in the 21st Century Net Centric Warfare (NCW)
         environment Gripen's flexible and modular design makes continuous
         development and enhancement both low risk and cost effective. The
         Gripen NG programme covers development of all major sensors and
         avionics including data communication, self-protection systems,
         weapons integration, as well as airframe and propulsion
         enhancements.

Continued Growth

         Gripen NG is a 'low risk' platform with a funded ongoing development
         programme and guaranteed enhancements. The Gripen NG has substantial
         growth capability which will ensure that Gripen NG meets all future
         requirements.

          

          

          

         US Deal

          

          

          

         Brazil - F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft  
         (Source: US Defense Security Cooperation Agency; dated Aug. 6,
         web-posted Aug. 10, 2009)
          
           WASHINGTON --- Today the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
         (DSCA) notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the
         Government of Brazil of 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft, eight
         F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft, 72 F414-GE-400 installed engines, a
         host of spare parts and munitions at an estimated value of $7.0
         billion.

         The Government of Brazil has requested proposals from several
         foreign suppliers, including the United States, to provide the next
         generation fighter for the Brazilian Air Force. In this \"FX-2\"
         competition, the Government of Brazil has yet to select the United
         States Navy-Boeing proposal.

         This notification is being made in advance of receipt of a letter of
         request so that, in the event that the US Navy-Boeing proposal is
         selected, the United States might move as quickly as possible to
         implement the sale.

         If the Government of Brazil selects the U.S. Navy-Boeing proposal,
         the Government of Brazil will request a possible sale of:

         -- 28 F/A-18E Super Hornet Aircraft,
         -- eight F/A-18F Super Hornet Aircraft,
         -- 72 F414-GE-400 installed engines,
         -- four F414-GE-400 spare engines,
         -- 36 AN/APG-79 Radar Systems,
         -- 36 M61A2 20mm Gun Systems,
         -- 36 AN/ALR-67(V) three Radar Warning Receivers,
         -- 144 LAU-127 Launchers,
         -- 44 Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing Systems (JHMCS),
         -- 28 AIM-120C-7 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM),
         -- 28 AIM-9M Sidewinder Missiles,
         -- 60 GBU-31/32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM),
         -- 36 AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOW),
         -- 10 AGM-88B HARM Missiles, and
         -- 36 AN/ASQ-228 (V2) Advanced Targeting Forward-Looking Infrared
         (ATFLIR) Pods.

         Also included are 36 AN/ALQ-214 Radio Frequency Countermeasures. 40
         AN/ALE-47 Electronic Warfare Countermeasures Systems, 112 AN/ALE-50
         Towed Decoys, Joint Mission Planning System, support equipment,
         spare and repair parts, personnel training and training equipment,
         ferry and tanker support, flight test, software support,
         publications and technical documents, U.S. Government and contractor
         engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other
         related elements of logistics and program support.

         This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and
         national security of the United States by helping to improve the
         security of a friendly country that has been, and continues to be,
         an important force for political stability and economic progress in
         South America.

         Brazil needs these aircraft to meet current and future threats. The
         proposed sale of F/A-18E/F aircraft will enhance Brazil's tactical
         aviation capabilities. An increase in capability will be accrued
         primarily due to the larger number of aircraft and the larger range
         and endurance of the F/A-18E/F. Brazil will have no difficulty
         absorbing these aircraft into its aircraft inventory. The proposed
         sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military
         balance in the region.

         The principal contractors will be:
         --The Boeing Company St. Louis, Mo.
         --General Electric Aircraft Engines Lynn, Mass.
         --Northrop Grumman Corporation El Segundo, Calif.
         --Raytheon Corporation El Segundo, Calif.
         --Lockheed Martin Bethesda, Md.

         Offsets agreements associated with this proposed sale are expected;
         however, specific agreements are undetermined and will be defined
         during negotiations between the purchaser and contractor.

         Implementation of this sale will require approximately eight
         contractor representatives to provide technical and logistics
         support in Brazil for two years. U.S. Government and contractor
         representatives will also participate in program management and
         technical reviews for one-week intervals twice semi-annually.

         There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a
         result of this proposed sale.

         This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean
         the sale has been concluded.

         -ends-

         Nate Hughes wrote:

           Rami can take the lead on this, but we've got a few things on his
           plate today and Marko was hoping to get this rolling ASAP. The
           priority is the first tranche of questions for the initial Gripen
           piece.

           First, for the Gripen piece:
             * A clear understanding of the three offerings before Brazil:
                  * What has each offered specifically in terms of price,
                    tech transfer and indigenous assembly/production (not all
                    may be available, but we need to know what's out there --
                    particularly the price drop of the Gripen and price point
                    of the Rafale)
             * Just how dire/desperate is Saab? Are they trying to secure the
               deal in order to secure the deal? Or are they in more dire
               straits than that?
             * Any other takers for the NG? Even follow-on orders or for
               upgrades?
             * What has Saab managed to sell of the Gripen NGs thus far?
           Overall:
             * A careful look at each company in turn. Obviously we're
               starting with Saab. Dassault next, since I think the Rafale
               may be in worse shape than the Gripen. Eurofighter is the most
               coherent of the three at this point, I believe. For each:
                  * brief history of genesis of the program, and the business
                    case for it -- how many was each intending to sell to the
                    primary customer and how many were intended to be sold
                    abroad?
                  * In particular, what was the scheme and why did it fail?
                    For example, the Gripen was specifically designed as a
                    low cost, and low-life cycle-cost alternative to the
                    other designs on the market. Supposed to be a solid
                    plane. Certainly not competing directly with the Joint
                    Strike Fighter. What gives?
                  * Let's get a key sense of exactly where each fighter was
                    supposed to be sold... country by country. Marko can then
                    quickly lay out the macroeconomics of why country X or Y
                    could no longer afford this or that fighter.
                  * Key export agreements/failures to secure them. Timeline
                    for each. (I want to be careful about correlation of the
                    Iraq war with the sales of the Gripen. Even if they
                    correlate, that doesn't mean causation necessarily. Let's
                    get dates but also look at the production schedule for
                    the Gripen)
             * Might be good to get a bit of a sense of the evolution of the
               global fighter jet market as a whole, so we can fit European
               efforts in with American and Russian efforts.
             * Can we get a sense of all NEW Jet Fighter orders from 2000
               onwards? I am making 2000 up as arbitrary number... but it
               would be good to get a really detailed excel worksheet going
               with ALL fighter jet sales. Let's concentrate first on NEW
               fighters, not repurchased, since that will make things easier
               and we can decide if we need repurchased later. There has to
               be a study out there on this.
             * Let's see if we can't dig up some analysis of this situation.
               We're not the first to contemplate this. What are industry
               rags and European circles saying about it?
           --
           Nathan Hughes
           Director of Military Analysis
           STRATFOR
           512.744.4300 ext. 4097
           nathan.hughes@stratfor.com

 --
 Kristen Cooper
 Researcher
 STRATFOR
 www.stratfor.com
 512.744.4093 - office
 512.619.9414 - cell
 kristen.cooper@stratfor.com

 --
 Matthew Powers
 STRATFOR Intern
 Matthew.Powers@stratfor.com

 --
 Matthew Powers
 STRATFOR Intern
 Matthew.Powers@stratfor.com
","2009-09-30 21:39:12",1,"2012-02-27 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1009309_re-research-request-europe-mil-fighter-jet-market-.html","matthew.powers@stratfor.com","","researchers@stratfor.com","attach/97/97774_Gripen Company Summary.doc"
1010563,"[CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing possible
   cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat Anonymous can pose
   to cartels. The video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing personal
   information on cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I
   could not find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual
   being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and
   Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual posting flyers
   in Veracruz as part of the Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is
   speculation.

   Link: themeData
   Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
   denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed out at
   drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
   criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked individual
   addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the most recent video
   release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels in
   Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers, police,
   politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker
   group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
   consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
   mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their
   demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The potential of
   conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents a unique
   threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out at online bloggers,
   but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches
   from hackers before. 

   What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
        o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat to
   Mexican cartels.
        o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online media
        o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out at
   cartels

   While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a threat
        o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess identifiable
   information on cartel members
        o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
   cartels
        o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
   identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in the
   realm of possibilities for
               Anonymous
               o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit
   online activity (child pornography rings)

   Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the ultra-violent world
   of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result, their understanding of cartel
   activities may be limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting
   in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
   retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online assault of
   cartels.
        o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists will cost
   lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these individuals are forced
   to collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are often victims of
   extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the identity of these
   individuals will not have a significant impact on cartel                  
   operations. Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero
   & Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any consequences
   from this.
        o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels are
   willing to go protect their operations.
           o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
           o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science community
   before, coercing computer science majors into working for them.
           o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of discovering
   hackers within Mexico.

    

   On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but there are
     several issues to address and fix here.

     These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the discussion:

          o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but we
     can't gloss over that fact
          o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference between
     stealing bank records from government computers and overloading
     www.loszetas.com main page.
          o     There's no thought out process of what sort of information
     could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is kept online and
     accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
     identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops, politicians and
     businessmen who need to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
     Think about why the bloggers and media were killed in previous
     instances. Was it because they revealed operational details, because
     they acted as informants, because they exposed links with officials or
     because they somehow sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what
     kind of information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
          o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
     realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure of
     damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for the
     technical ability by a very small number of its members to infiltrate
     certain networks and databases and steal information. Now what kind of
     information would a cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
     internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could information be found?
     Government databases? Once we know what kind of information is
     accessible, we can also know more about the consequences of
     dissemination.
          o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace back
     attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings done by people
     who may not understand the difference between an anon hacker and a
     blogger.

     On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

       wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

       -------- Original Message --------

        Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
           Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
           From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
       Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
             To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

       you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a lot
       more work

       You need to lay out:

       a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section is
       unclear
       b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and therefore
       their vulnerabilities and capabilities
       c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
       d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone who
       breaches their systems or exposes their connections

       I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable insight
       that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant levels of
       sophistication in their online presence, to include the use of cyber
       currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no reason to assume
       that Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a protected
       fashion.

       Karen Hooper
       Latin America Analyst
       o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
       c: 512.750.7234
       STRATFOR
       www.stratfor.com
       On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

       On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       Link: themeData

       Trigger

       Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers. Anonymous,
       a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed out at drug
       cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
       criminal cartels, including a video released depicting...? a person
       talking? a voice? words on a screen? exactly when?.  With the most
       recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
       criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of Mexican?
       American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists who
       collude with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas
       release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. The
       potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
       presents an unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly
       different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
       Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
       believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do not
       believe for a second that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

        

       In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
       day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of
       releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up front.
       Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back. Provide
       enough details so we understand who this guy is and why/how he was
       abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing revealing
       information on cartel members and operations are true, cartels will
       likely respond with violence against individuals revealed as opposing
       cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous members?. It also is likely
       that public disclosure of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will
       force the GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i
       don't understand what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten
       Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
       against Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will continue
       their threats against any individual using online media WC.... you
       mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers here. against
       the cartels.

        

       The Battle Space

       Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate realities
       from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere of the computer
       networks. Anonymous does not experience geographical boundaries. All
       personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in cyber space.  (That is
       not entirely true. They are physical people tho live in the real
       world. They have names and addresses - although most of them are
       likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power base consists of their
       technical capabilities in hacking. Any information connected to the
       Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's
       of individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population could
       be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous has done are
       DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big company with a
       website that brings in revenue, but it does not really matter if you
       don't run operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money via
       e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on the web than the
       jihadists.)

       Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power base
       consists of the perceived anonymity that its members believe
       themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating through the
       internet. This gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything and
       everything to practice general dickery. As the popular meme goes,
       anonymity + audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web of
       people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious
       IT capability. 

       The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been from
       targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

       The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
       Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to maximize
       profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar commerce. Yes.....
       but they use the internet to launder money and issue commands. We know
       that Sinaloa does that from insight. There is no reason to assume that
       Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity.  Their power base is built by
       large amounts of revenue and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like
       Los Zetas, are experienced in facing different types of threats.
       Cartels are always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel
       violence. While battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law
       Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in the
       flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted media outlets.
       Murdering journalists and online bloggers in order to cover details of
       their operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for this
       discussion. You need to focus on the possible vulnerabilities of the
       cartels. Don't just assume they have no cyber presence.

        

       Anonymous' Weapons

       Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
       criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to combat
       cartels lay in information operations, mainly disseminating sensitive
       information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel statements via
       social media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean so far and that
       we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to cartels, they
       cannot fight with guns.  The significance of a targeted information
       operations campaign by technically elite individuals can not be
       overlooked should not be underestimated. Cartels view main stream
       media outlets and social media blogs as such a threat to their
       operations, that they have continued to target journalists and
       bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was placed with a
       dead female body  more relevantly, on the body of a blogger. The
       message threatened any users who denounce cartels on blogging
       websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not really addressing the
       subheading

       As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet risks
       disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest Anonymous is
       capable of possessing information they threaten to release. By
       releasing identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican cartels,
       Anonymous threatens the life of those individuals. Anonymous's ability
       to disseminate sensitive information is limited by what is available
       via the Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
       should always be considered a possibility of an attack. However, as
       with the compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer
       networks, information available to Mexico's intelligence collection
       may not be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This
       isn't clear at all

        

       Cartel's Defense

                   A counter response to the video? by the cartels has yet to
       see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped member by Los
       Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by
       hackers so... how has there not been a counter response? also this
       undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is soley internet
       based, and underlines the vulnerabilities of associated members. How
       did they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well
       give you some indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
       Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the
       cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed for
       them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies dedicated to
       fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good intel
       indicating that) they are working on disrupting the cartels.. Hackers
       threatening cartels, can operate in any region of the world. Personal
       information including locations is only available if a hacker chooses
       to divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
       figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous. Cartels are only
       capable of dealing with their online enemy, if they can physically
       reach out to them. Or start employing hackers of their own under their
       payroll? Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                   Cartels have been known to coerce the services of Mexican
       citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the help of computer
       science majors through personal threats has been reported in the past
       where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels operate in the
       world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they will likely need
       the assistance of technical experts to help combat any threat by
       computer hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has
       been demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying
       any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies
       such as the FBi, with far more technical experience and resources than
       cartels, struggle to find hackers through investigations. A) How do
       you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they kidnapped???)
       B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are equally difficult to
       track down

                   In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
       likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with, brute
       force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT operations within
       Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals
       with alleged connections to hacker communities will likely be targeted
       and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and public display
       of violence will likely continue to be used to scare online media into
       submission i'm not really seeing the online media-international
       hacking group connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
       inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely encountered
       before in their life. Whether the fear of cartel violence softens the
       confidence of Anonymous will remain to be seen until cartels are able
       to seek out and capture members of the hacker group.. Or the Narcos
       could call the collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off any
       inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 16:32:57",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1010563_-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1010679,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else can build
   off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they pose to innocent
   people caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing on journalists
   or taxi drivers they show little understanding of the situation.  This has
   long term implications in not just Mexico.  They don't consider the
   consequences of their actions and they act without understanding the
   environment.  It was the same when they released information on the Sony
   Playstation network to protest Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a
   point. 

   On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing possible
     cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat Anonymous can pose
     to cartels. The video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing
     personal information on cartels as well as states a member had been
     kidnapped. I could not find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of
     the individual being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites
     (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an
     individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the Operation
     Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

     Link: themeData
     Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
     denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed out at
     drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
     criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked individual
     addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the most recent
     video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels
     in Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers, police,
     politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The
     hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member
     otherwise face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming
     November 5th was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
     reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met.
     The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
     presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out at
     online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing
     with any headaches from hackers before. 

     What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
          o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat to
     Mexican cartels.
          o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online media
          o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out at
     cartels

     While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a threat
          o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess identifiable
     information on cartel members
          o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
     cartels
          o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
     identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in the
     realm of possibilities for
                 Anonymous
                 o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
     illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

     Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the ultra-violent
     world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result, their understanding of
     cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when
     sitting in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
     retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online assault of
     cartels.
          o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists will
     cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these individuals are
     forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are often
     victims of extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the
     identity of these individuals will not have a significant impact on
     cartel                   operations. Politicans have been accused of
     working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before, however
     there has yet to be any consequences from this.
          o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels are
     willing to go protect their operations.
             o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
             o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science community
     before, coercing computer science majors into working for them.
             o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
     discovering hackers within Mexico.

      

     On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

       Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but there
       are several issues to address and fix here.

       These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
       discussion:

            o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but we
       can't gloss over that fact
            o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference between
       stealing bank records from government computers and overloading
       www.loszetas.com main page.
            o     There's no thought out process of what sort of information
       could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is kept online and
       accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
       identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops, politicians and
       businessmen who need to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
       Think about why the bloggers and media were killed in previous
       instances. Was it because they revealed operational details, because
       they acted as informants, because they exposed links with officials or
       because they somehow sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what
       kind of information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
            o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
       realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure of
       damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for the
       technical ability by a very small number of its members to infiltrate
       certain networks and databases and steal information. Now what kind of
       information would a cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
       internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could information be found?
       Government databases? Once we know what kind of information is
       accessible, we can also know more about the consequences of
       dissemination.
            o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
       back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings done by
       people who may not understand the difference between an anon hacker
       and a blogger.

       On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

         wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

         -------- Original Message --------

          Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
             Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
             From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
         Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
               To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

         you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a lot
         more work

         You need to lay out:

         a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section is
         unclear
         b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
         therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
         c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
         d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone who
         breaches their systems or exposes their connections

         I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
         insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant levels
         of sophistication in their online presence, to include the use of
         cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no reason to
         assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
         protected fashion.

         Karen Hooper
         Latin America Analyst
         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
         c: 512.750.7234
         STRATFOR
         www.stratfor.com
         On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

         On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

         Link: themeData

         Trigger

         Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
         Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed out
         at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
         Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released depicting...?
         a person talking? a voice? words on a screen? exactly when?.  With
         the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
         the criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of
         Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
         journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker group
         demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
         consequences. The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal
         cartels and hackers, presents an unprecedented war front for the
         cartels. The vastly different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas
         leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have little
         experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no experience
         with the cartels. I do not believe for a second that the cartels
         have no experience with hackers.

          

         In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
         day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of
         releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up
         front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back.
         Provide enough details so we understand who this guy is and why/how
         he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing
         revealing information on cartel members and operations are true,
         cartels will likely respond with violence against individuals
         revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous
         members?. It also is likely that public disclosure of GOM officials
         who collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving the
         Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this means. You
         mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel
         will be able to retaliate against Anonymous remains unanswered .
         However, cartels will continue their threats against any individual
         using online media WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not
         talking about bloggers here. against the cartels.

          

         The Battle Space

         Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
         realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere of
         the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience geographical
         boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in
         cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They are physical people
         tho live in the real world. They have names and addresses - although
         most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power base
         consists of their technical capabilities in hacking. Any information
         connected to the Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers.
         (Identifying the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst of
         Mexico's population could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of
         what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
         Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in revenue,
         but it does not really matter if you don't run operations on the
         web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are also far
         less dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

         Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power base
         consists of the perceived anonymity that its members believe
         themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating through the
         internet. This gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
         and everything to practice general dickery. As the popular meme
         goes, anonymity + audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web
         of people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of
         serious IT capability. 

         The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been from
         targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

         The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
         Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
         maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
         commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money and
         issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight. There
         is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity.
         Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue and escalating
         brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing
         different types of threats. Cartels are always suffering at the
         hands of cartel on cartel violence. While battling each other,
         cartels still face arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels
         wish to avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
         have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
         bloggers in order to cover details of their operations. ok... but
         that's kind of a red herrng for this discussion. You need to focus
         on the possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume
         they have no cyber presence.

          

         Anonymous' Weapons

         Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
         criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
         combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly disseminating
         sensitive information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel
         statements via social media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean
         so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
         cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance of a
         targeted information operations campaign by technically elite
         individuals can not be overlooked should not be underestimated.
         Cartels view main stream media outlets and social media blogs as
         such a threat to their operations, that they have continued to
         target journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los
         Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the
         body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who denounce
         cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not
         really addressing the subheading

         As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet risks
         disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest Anonymous
         is capable of possessing information they threaten to release. By
         releasing identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
         cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those individuals.
         Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive information is limited
         by what is available via the Internet. Government computers
         connected to the Internet should always be considered a possibility
         of an attack. However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the
         US governments computer networks, information available to Mexico's
         intelligence collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you
         trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

          

         Cartel's Defense

                     A counter response to the video? by the cartels has yet
         to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped member by
         Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed
         by hackers so... how has there not been a counter response? also
         this undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is soley
         internet based, and underlines the vulnerabilities of associated
         members. How did they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that
         could very well give you some indication to the technical ability of
         the cartels . As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
         wide web , the cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely
         are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole
         agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume
         (and we have good intel indicating that) they are working on
         disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in
         any region of the world. Personal information including locations is
         only available if a hacker chooses to divulge it or if the subject
         of the attack is savvy enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only
         work for Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
         online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
         employing hackers of their own under their payroll? Stranger things
         have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                     Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
         Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the help of
         computer science majors through personal threats has been reported
         in the past where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels
         operate in the world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they
         will likely need the assistance of technical experts to help combat
         any threat by computer hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside
         of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable
         of identifying any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
         enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
         experience and resources than cartels, struggle to find hackers
         through investigations. A) How do you know they are not in Mexico?
         (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not
         all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                     In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
         likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with, brute
         force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT operations within
         Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals
         with alleged connections to hacker communities will likely be
         targeted and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and
         public display of violence will likely continue to be used to scare
         online media into submission i'm not really seeing the online
         media-international hacking group connection here.  The cruel
         manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer hackers
         have unlikely encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
         cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will remain to
         be seen until cartels are able to seek out and capture members of
         the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the collective bluff and
         simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 17:22:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1010679_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1011703,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already The USG arrested 10
     Russian spies last year, are you willing to say foreign intel is not
     capable of conducting espionage undetected?

     2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
     responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating cyber
     intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case HUMINT is
     just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT capabilities does not
     indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers. NSA may have there own
     department for tracking hackers but it does not make it SIGINT. The
     question is if the attack is high priority enough.  Many people assume
     there is no attribution because there is no response, but I don't think
     that is accurate.  Many people say this, because no attribution is one
     reason for no response.

     3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new laptop and
     start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack involves much more than
     a recently bought laptop.  In the same way there is an attack cycle for
     a terrorist attack or crime, there is one for a cyber attack.  A very
     simple attack may be as hard to trace as a nearly-random mugging in the
     dark in a neighborhood with much more serious crime and no CCTV
     cameras.  A more complicated attack, however, involves pre-operational
     surveillance, developing exploits, developing programs and code, gaining
     access, exploiting that, and carrying out an attack.  Discovering
     exploits and writing code can be done entirely offline, out of sight of
     law enforcement or intel agencies. Pre-operational surveillance and
     gaining access (the point of the exploit you write offline) would fit in
     my example. The point is, if you don't link your computer to
     identifiable information, you remain anonymous.  And that takes time,
     giving more time for your exposure Exposure comes from network activity
     with the target, a lot of the pre-operational phase of an attack can
     occur without network activity. Look at everything that went into
     Stuxnet as a great example, that couldn't be done with one person with a
     new laptop. Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of
     necessary labor for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are
     discussing operations on the scale of causing physical damage to
     extremely sensitive equipment .  All of this activity provides activity
     and evidence which helps for attribution.  Of course it is always
     possible to develop an attack, just like any other operation, that even
     the best law enforcement and national intelligence agencies have trouble
     or cannot attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that it's very difficult
     for someone to successfully use Anonymous as a cover and have NSA, GHQ,
     MID, Aman, etc, be unable to attribute it.  How do you know if NSA or
     GHQ is effective in identifying hackers? They may not choose to cover it
     if it is small scale crime, however. 
     On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored cyber
       warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing that, since
       you can conduct a cyber attack without associating with a hacker group
       and still deny / cover actions on behalf of the State. An individual
       attacking US computer assets from China, may be working by himself or
       on behalf of the Chinese government, but unless the US has other intel
       on the Chinese government's cyber warfare activities in order to
       corroborate there is little capability to distinguish.

       It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
       operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets from
       SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual responsible for
       hacking State run servers. In the past, I have turned to SIGINT
       organizations for collections on computer related material, but this
       was due to the US being behind in cyber warfare, and not knowing where
       to assign responsibility. However, this has changed dramatically in
       the last couple of years.

       Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As an
       extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go to a
       Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the online
       activity to something revealing (accessing personal email accounts,
       tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop, etc..), and
       begin hacking government email accounts then never use the laptop
       again. Unless LEA could get an accurate description of my appearance
       from Starbuck's patrons or possible security cameras, I can not think
       of way to identify me.

       Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to these
       enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied to specific
       computer-related activities because of the difficulty in identifying
       individuals.

       I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown, would
       be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a common
       participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a State?
       Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that State agent
       organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter buddies, what signs
       could a LEA look for to distinguish?

       On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a bit)

         1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything actually
         harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't, but i'm very
         doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first real case where
         they could do some minor damage--to individual people, not not to an
         organization or anything that would come as a serious or strategic
         threat. 

         2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is actually
         pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as a cover, but
         that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could probably still be
         attributed if important enough to those agencies.  The recent attack
         on Sony actually brings this issue up- Whoever is calling themselves
         anonymous denies they did it.  And keep in mind how much they have
         claimed an publicized attacks in the past, even before they were
         carried out.  The attack on the Playstation Network was more
         sophisticated than anonymous' usual work (though potentially
         coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that distracted Sony's IT
         security).  But whoever did it, again, no real damage came of it. 
         Congress is holding hearings over data security, but this is no
         different than the OC groups stealing your credit card information. 
         LE will go after them, have some success, but the threat is not that
         large. 
         On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

           Link: themeData

           I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to have a
           broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no nothing, or
           almost nothing about what this group is and the threat it poses.
           Reviewing their list of attacks
           (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most of
           the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood of the
           internet . The interesting thing when it comes to their
           interactions with the cartels is the dubious role they play: at
           the same time they can be fighting crime by revealing cartel
           members/supporters, but they can also put lives in risk.

           However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
           Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can
           conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
           (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

           If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
           websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to know
           more about these guys. Who they are? What are they interested in?
           How they operate? Who they have targeted so far? How can I defend
           myself from them? In what countries are they active? Should I
           worry about them at all? Can I use them to achieve any particular
           goal?

           On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

             nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else
             can build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they
             pose to innocent people caught up in the terror that is Mexico. 
             By focusing on journalists or taxi drivers they show little
             understanding of the situation.  This has long term implications
             in not just Mexico.  They don't consider the consequences of
             their actions and they act without understanding the
             environment.  It was the same when they released information on
             the Sony Playstation network to protest Sony.  They hurt
             innocent people to prove a point. 

             On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

               Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
               possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
               Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by
               Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on cartels
               as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
               find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the
               individual being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites
               (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it
               may be an individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the
               Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

               Link: themeData
               Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
               distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government
               websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
               statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a
               video depicting a masked individual addressing Mexican drug
               cartels on October 10? With the most recent video release,
               Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels in
               Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers,
               police, politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal
               cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow
               kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. In the
               Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
               day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands
               of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The potential of
               conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
               presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels
               lashing out at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any
               reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers
               before. 

               What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                    o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
               threat to Mexican cartels.
                    o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit
               online media
                    o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to
               lash out at cartels

               While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose
               a threat
                    o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
               identifiable information on cartel members
                    o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could
               acquire on cartels
                    o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
               communications, identifiable information on cartels members
               have to be considered in the realm of possibilities for
                           Anonymous
                           o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to
               reveal illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

               Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
               ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
               result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
               limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting in
               front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
               retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online
               assault of cartels.
                    o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
               journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some
               of these individuals are forced to collude with cartels.    
                         Taxi drivers are often victims of extortion or
               coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the identity of these
               individuals will not have a significant impact on cartel    
                             operations. Politicans have been accused of
               working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before,
               however there has yet to be any consequences from this.
                    o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent
               cartels are willing to go protect their operations.
                       o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                       o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
               community before, coercing computer science majors into
               working for them.
                       o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
               discovering hackers within Mexico.

                

               On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                 Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea
                 but there are several issues to address and fix here.

                 These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
                 discussion:

                      o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's
                 fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                      o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                 difference between stealing bank records from government
                 computers and overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                      o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
                 information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of
                 info is kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You
                 seem to be talking about identities, whose? If anything it's
                 dirty cops, politicians and businessmen who need to worry
                 about what anon is going to be saying. Think about why the
                 bloggers and media were killed in previous instances. Was it
                 because they revealed operational details, because they
                 acted as informants, because they exposed links with
                 officials or because they somehow sullied the cartel's
                 reputation? In short, what kind of information is damaging
                 to the cartels themselves?
                      o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon
                 can realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes
                 a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence
                 capacity except for the technical ability by a very small
                 number of its members to infiltrate certain networks and
                 databases and steal information. Now what kind of
                 information would a cartel keep on a network that is
                 connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else
                 could information be found? Government databases? Once we
                 know what kind of information is accessible, we can also
                 know more about the consequences of dissemination.
                      o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to
                 trace back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of
                 killings done by people who may not understand the
                 difference between an anon hacker and a blogger.

                 On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                   wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                   -------- Original Message --------

                    Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                       Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                       From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                   Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                         To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                   you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to
                   need a lot more work

                   You need to lay out:

                   a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger
                   section is unclear
                   b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is,
                   and therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
                   c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
                   anything
                   d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill
                   anyone who breaches their systems or exposes their
                   connections

                   I also just want to point out that we have reasonable
                   reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some
                   significant levels of sophistication in their online
                   presence, to include the use of cyber currencies and
                   significant IT capacity. There is no reason to assume that
                   Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
                   protected fashion.

                   Karen Hooper
                   Latin America Analyst
                   o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                   c: 512.750.7234
                   STRATFOR
                   www.stratfor.com
                   On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                   On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                   Link: themeData

                   Trigger

                   Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
                   Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?,
                   lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
                   statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including
                   a video released depicting...? a person talking? a voice?
                   words on a screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent
                   video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                   criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of
                   Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
                   journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker
                   group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member
                   otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
                   between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
                   unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly
                   different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a
                   conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have little
                   experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no
                   experience with the cartels. I do not believe for a second
                   that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                    

                   In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                   mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                   reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped member
                   this should be mentioned right up front. Cartels have a
                   member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back. Provide
                   enough details so we understand who this guy is and
                   why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims
                   of possessing revealing information on cartel members and
                   operations are true, cartels will likely respond with
                   violence against individuals revealed as opposing cartel
                   members huh? you mean Anonymous members?. It also is
                   likely that public disclosure of GOM officials who collude
                   with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving the
                   Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this
                   means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
                   effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against
                   Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will
                   continue their threats against any individual using online
                   media WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking
                   about bloggers here. against the cartels.

                    

                   The Battle Space

                   Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two
                   separate realities from each other. Anonymous operates
                   solely in sphere of the computer networks. Anonymous does
                   not experience geographical boundaries. All personalities
                   within Anonymous, exist solely in cyber space.  (That is
                   not entirely true. They are physical people tho live in
                   the real world. They have names and addresses - although
                   most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power
                   base consists of their technical capabilities in hacking.
                   Any information connected to the Internet is vulnerable to
                   exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's of individual
                   cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population could
                   be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
                   has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or
                   a big company with a website that brings in revenue, but
                   it does not really matter if you don't run operations on
                   the web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They
                   are also far less dependent on the web than the
                   jihadists.)

                   Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's
                   power base consists of the perceived anonymity that its
                   members believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by
                   operating through the internet. This gives an opening for
                   people disgruntled by anything and everything to practice
                   general dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity +
                   audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web of
                   people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any
                   sort of serious IT capability. 

                   The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has
                   been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

                   The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in
                   US and Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always
                   looking to maximize profits and expand. But they are
                   bricks and mortar commerce. Yes..... but they use the
                   internet to launder money and issue commands. We know that
                   Sinaloa does that from insight. There is no reason to
                   assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity. 
                   Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue and
                   escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
                   experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels
                   are always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel
                   violence. While battling each other, cartels still face
                   arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to
                   avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money,
                   cartels have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists
                   and online bloggers in order to cover details of their
                   operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for this
                   discussion. You need to focus on the possible
                   vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
                   have no cyber presence.

                    

                   Anonymous' Weapons

                   Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions
                   against criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous'
                   only ability to combat cartels lay in information
                   operations, mainly disseminating sensitive information on
                   cartels and propagating anti-cartel statements via social
                   media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean so far and
                   that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
                   cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance of
                   a targeted information operations campaign by technically
                   elite individuals can not be overlooked should not be
                   underestimated. Cartels view main stream media outlets and
                   social media blogs as such a threat to their operations,
                   that they have continued to target journalists and
                   bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was
                   placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the
                   body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
                   denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive
                   here, and it's not really addressing the subheading

                   As stated earlier, any information connected to the
                   internet risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample
                   reason to suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing
                   information they threaten to release. By releasing
                   identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
                   cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
                   individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
                   information is limited by what is available via the
                   Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
                   should always be considered a possibility of an attack.
                   However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the US
                   governments computer networks, information available to
                   Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy to
                   acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This isn't
                   clear at all

                    

                   Cartel's Defense

                               A counter response to the video? by the
                   cartels has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous'
                   claims of a kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los
                   Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by hackers
                   so... how has there not been a counter response? also this
                   undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is
                   soley internet based, and underlines the vulnerabilities
                   of associated members. How did they find teh Anonymous
                   member? The answer to that could very well give you some
                   indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
                   Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web
                   , the cartels will face a number of challenges which
                   rarely are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG
                   has whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in
                   cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good intel
                   indicating that) they are working on disrupting the
                   cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in any
                   region of the world. Personal information including
                   locations is only available if a hacker chooses to divulge
                   it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
                   figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous.
                   Cartels are only capable of dealing with their online
                   enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
                   employing hackers of their own under their payroll?
                   Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                               Cartels have been known to coerce the services
                   of Mexican citizens with a technical background.
                   Recruiting the help of computer science majors through
                   personal threats has been reported in the past where? What
                   cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels operate in the
                   world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they will
                   likely need the assistance of technical experts to help
                   combat any threat by computer hackers.  While identifying
                   bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is
                   unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
                   operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies
                   such as the FBi, with far more technical experience and
                   resources than cartels, struggle to find hackers through
                   investigations. A) How do you know they are not in Mexico?
                   (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume
                   that not all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                               In order to compete with an online foe,
                   cartels will likely continue counter tactics they are most
                   familiar with, brute force. Cartels are still capable of
                   their HUMINT operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would
                   we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged
                   connections to hacker communities will likely be targeted
                   and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and
                   public display of violence will likely continue to be used
                   to scare online media into submission i'm not really
                   seeing the online media-international hacking group
                   connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
                   inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
                   encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
                   cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will
                   remain to be seen until cartels are able to seek out and
                   capture members of the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could
                   call the collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off
                   any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

         --

         Sean Noonan

         Tactical Analyst

         Office: +1 512-279-9479

         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

         www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-25 00:07:40",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1011703_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1013806,"Re: Research Request - Europe/MIL - Fighter Jet Market
","   Attached is my summary of the Dassault and Rafale's place in it.

   The Rafale is not the main component of Dassault's business.  62% of sales
   come from sales of the Falcon business jet. Defense sales make up the
   rest, with 31% from sales to France; while foreign defense sales account
   for only 7%.  However, no Rafales have been sold overseas.  Total sales
   were 3.75 Billion euros in 2008.

   The Rafale was designed primarily for use by the French government, but
   also for export.  They said they tried to develop the fighter to meet
   worldwide, as opposed to strictly western European needs.  As of 2008 120
   Rafales have been ordered by, or delivered to, the French government. 

   Kristen Cooper wrote:

     Just FYI -

     I'm working on the first bullet in the first tranche of questions

     Antonia is taking a look into Saab's situation right now.

     Kristen Cooper wrote:

       Got it.
       On Sep 30, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Nate Hughes wrote:

         Rami can take the lead on this, but we've got a few things on his
         plate today and Marko was hoping to get this rolling ASAP. The
         priority is the first tranche of questions for the initial Gripen
         piece.

         First, for the Gripen piece:
           * A clear understanding of the three offerings before Brazil:
                * What has each offered specifically in terms of price, tech
                  transfer and indigenous assembly/production (not all may be
                  available, but we need to know what's out there --
                  particularly the price drop of the Gripen and price point
                  of the Rafale)
           * Just how dire/desperate is Saab? Are they trying to secure the
             deal in order to secure the deal? Or are they in more dire
             straits than that?
           * Any other takers for the NG? Even follow-on orders or for
             upgrades?
           * What has Saab managed to sell of the Gripen NGs thus far? 
         Overall:
           * A careful look at each company in turn. Obviously we're starting
             with Saab. Dassault next, since I think the Rafale may be in
             worse shape than the Gripen. Eurofighter is the most coherent of
             the three at this point, I believe. For each:
                * brief history of genesis of the program, and the business
                  case for it -- how many was each intending to sell to the
                  primary customer and how many were intended to be sold
                  abroad?
                * In particular, what was the scheme and why did it fail? For
                  example, the Gripen was specifically designed as a low
                  cost, and low-life cycle-cost alternative to the other
                  designs on the market. Supposed to be a solid plane.
                  Certainly not competing directly with the Joint Strike
                  Fighter. What gives? 
                * Let's get a key sense of exactly where each fighter was
                  supposed to be sold... country by country. Marko can then
                  quickly lay out the macroeconomics of why country X or Y
                  could no longer afford this or that fighter. 
                * Key export agreements/failures to secure them. Timeline for
                  each. (I want to be careful about correlation of the Iraq
                  war with the sales of the Gripen. Even if they correlate,
                  that doesn't mean causation necessarily. Let's get dates
                  but also look at the production schedule for the Gripen)
           * Might be good to get a bit of a sense of the evolution of the
             global fighter jet market as a whole, so we can fit European
             efforts in with American and Russian efforts.
           * Can we get a sense of all NEW Jet Fighter orders from 2000
             onwards? I am making 2000 up as arbitrary number... but it would
             be good to get a really detailed excel worksheet going with ALL
             fighter jet sales. Let's concentrate first on NEW fighters, not
             repurchased, since that will make things easier and we can
             decide if we need repurchased later. There has to be a study out
             there on this. 
           * Let's see if we can't dig up some analysis of this situation.
             We're not the first to contemplate this. What are industry rags
             and European circles saying about it?
         -- 
         Nathan Hughes
         Director of Military Analysis
         STRATFOR
         512.744.4300 ext. 4097
         nathan.hughes@stratfor.com

 --
 Kristen Cooper
 Researcher
 STRATFOR
 www.stratfor.com
 512.744.4093 - office
 512.619.9414 - cell
 kristen.cooper@stratfor.com

 --
 Matthew Powers
 STRATFOR Intern
 Matthew.Powers@stratfor.com
","2009-09-30 22:44:11",1,"2012-02-27 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1013806_re-research-request-europe-mil-fighter-jet-market-.html","matthew.powers@stratfor.com","","hughes@stratfor.com,marko.papic@stratfor.com,kristen.cooper@stratfor.com,researchers@stratfor.com","attach/97/97874_Dassault Company Summary.doc"
1016341,"Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta conflict
	in context
","   Just to build on my last comment - and I think this should be included in
   the piece - the cartels could just as easily try to intimidate would be
   sources ratting to anonymous as intimidate bloggers. Imagine if, after
   anonymous publishes a few juicy tidbits, Zetas hang a few headless bodies
   from a bridge accusing them of contributing to anonymous? True or not,
   cartels can intimidate both sides of the information flow and the sources
   may be more vulnerable than anonymous themselves.

   Still think a discussion of Anonymous and source handling would be pretty
   cool.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Ben West\" <ben.west@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 5:42:42 PM
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict        in context

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 4:45:43 PM
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict        in context

   On 11/1/11 1:11 PM, scott stewart wrote:

      Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta Conflict in Context

     On Oct. 31, the online activist collective Anonymous posted a message to
     the internet  in which it stated that it was continuing with its
     campaign against the Mexican criminal cartels and their
     governmentsupporters despite the inherent danger.

      

     The messageurged inexperienced activists who might not be practicing
     proper online security measures to abstain from participating. It also
     urged individuals associated with Anonymous to not conduct physical
     pamphlet drops, participate in protests, wear or purchase Guy Fawkes
     masks, or use Guy Fawkes imagery in their internet or physical world
     activities.[Is this universally or just in Mexico?  The former points to
     problems with LE cracking down on them, the latter specifically to
     cartel retribution]  Guy Fawkes was British Catholic conspirator who was
     involved in a plot to bomb the British Parliament in 1605, and who has
     become somewhat of an Anarchist icon in the United Kingdom. The British
     celebrate Guy Fawkes Day each year on Nov. 5, and the day has special
     meaning for the anarchists.  

      

     It is not coincidental then, that in their Oct. 6 video, Anonymous set
     Nov. 5 as the deadline for Los Zetas to release the Anonymous associate
     who was allegedly kidnapped in Veracruz by Los Zetas. The Anonymous
     associate was reportedly abducted during an Anonymous leaflet campaign
     called Operation Paperstorm.

      

     The Oct. 31message acknowledged that the operation against Los Zetas,
     dubbed a**# OpCartela** is dangerous and noted that the collective would
     be assembling a hand-picked group of known and trusted associates to
     participate in a special task force to execute the operation.[hahahaha,
     this says something about leadership] It asked supporters to use a
     software widget[WC. is this the correct term?] they had developed in
     order to anonymously pass information pertaining to drug trafficking to
     the task force, which will then distribute it. 

      

     With Nov. 5, approaching, and at least some elements of Anonymous not
     backing down on their threats to Los Zetas, we thought it would be
     useful to provide some context to the present conflict between Anonymous
     and Los Zetas and to also address some of its potential implications.

      

     Context

      

     First it issignificant to understand that the physical? geographic?
     epicenter of this event is Veracruz, which  has been a very busy place
     over the past few months in terms of Mexicoa**s cartel wars. The port
     city also serves as a critical transportation hub for the narcotics
     smuggling activities of the Los Zetas cartel. Because of this, Stratfor
     has identified Veracruz as [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111024-mexican-drug-war-update-polarization-continues
     ] a bellweather city thatwill help determine the trajectory of the Los
     Zetas cartel in the coming months. 

      

     One of the big recent developments in Veracruz was the Sinaloa
     cartela**s push into the Zeta stronghold using the [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-mexico-security-memo-zetas-defensive-veracruz
     ] Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG), which using the name
     Matazetas (Zeta killers) conducted some high-profile body dumps of over
     50 alleged low-level Zeta operatives on Sept. 20 and 22.  On Oct. 25,
     Mexican Marines arrested Carlos Arturo Pitalua-Carillo, a**El Bam
     Bam,a** who was Los Zetas plaza boss in Veracruz.  This means that in
     Veracruz at the present time, Los Zetas are feeling pressure from both
     the Government of Mexico and the CJNG.

      

     Into this dynamic flow, we had the Anonymous internet collective begin
     to take action in Veracruz in August. In response to what Anonymous saw
     as the state of Veracruz supporting the Los Zetas cartel, they launched
     Operation Paperstorm, in which activists who associated themselves with
     the Anonymous collective distributed leaflets throughout Veracruz
     claiming the state government supports Los Zetas.  They conducted major
     leaflet distributions on Aug. 13, 20, and 29. They also released videos
     to the internet on Aug. 26 and 29, condemning the State of Veracruz.
     (According to the Oct. 6 Anonymous video, Los Zetas allegedly kidnapped
     one of the activists involved in Operation Paperstorm.)

      

     Activities outside of Veracruz have also played a part in setting the
     stage. On Sept. 13, two people were tortured and killed and their bodies
     hung from a pedestrianoverpass in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas state.  Signs
     left with the bodies signified that Los Zetas had killed the pair
     because they had posted information pertaining to Los Zetas on blogs
     that specialize in reporting on the Mexican cartels. On Sept 26, the
     body of Marisol Macias Casteneda was found beheaded in a park in Nuevo
     Laredo.   Macias who worked for a local newspaper allegedly posted on
     cartel blogs using the nickname a**Laredo Girl.a** A message found with
     her body noted that she was killed by Los Zetas due to her online
     activities.

      

     Following the death of Laredo Girl, Anonymous claimed responsibility for
     a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack conducted against the
     official website of the state of Veracruz. Although she was killed by
     Los Zetas in Nuevo Laredo Tamaulipas, Anonymous said their attack on the
     Veracruz state website was because of the death of Laredo Girl. [can you
     attempt to explain why they linked it with veracruz?]

      

     It is also important to recognize that some members of Anonymous [again
     I hate referring to Anonymous as one entity] was also unhappy with the
     State of Veracruz over the decision of the state to prosecute two
     individuals who had posted false kidnapping reports on Twitter on Aug.
     25. The false reports alleged that a group of children had been abducted
     from a Veracruz school and the panic caused by the report allegedly
     resulted in some two dozen traffic accidents as terrified parents rushed
     to the school to check o n their children. The so-called a**twitter
     terroristsa** were initially charged with offenses that could have
     carried a 30-year sentence. Those involved in this campaign from
     Anonymous, which claims absolute freedom of speech on the internet as
     one of its foundational principles, took umbrage with this stiff penalty
     for the Twitter case a** especially because it stood in stark contrast
     with the impunity many cartel figures enjoy in Mexico. 

      

      

     Following the Oct. 6 release of the video in which Anonymous threatened
     Los Zetas if they did not release the kidnapped anonymous activist,
     Stratfor began to focus on the story, and in light of the approaching
     Nov. 5 deadline, decided to publish an, [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111028-mexicos-cartels-draw-online-activists-ire
     ] analysis of the topic, which was released on Oct. 28.  

      

     Following the release of our analysis, the topic has received a great
     deal of media coverage. This publicity has generated a very interesting
     response from Anonymous -- one that emphasizes the fast that it is a
     collective of people and not an organization.  As some
     Anonymousactivists were backing off the issue, erasing online user
     accounts[does this mean accounts of people in support of the attack?],
     suggesting that the operation against Los Zetas had been a hoax and
     claiming that no activist had been kidnapped, other activists suggested
     that the campaign should be suspended. Still other activists became more
     strident and determined in their posts, urging that the campaign
     continue. Since Anonymous is a collective, activists can pick and choose
     which actions they will participate in. that means in his case that
     those activists who want to refrain from the campaign will and those who
     want to participate will continue it.  [i see how this paragraph fits
     into your analysis the way you have it written, but I think it might go
     better at the front.  You could use the 'anonymous discussion' as a
     trigger, explain it's \"collective\" qualities and then go into the rest
     of the analysis.  This way I feel much less bad about how we refer to
     'anonymous']

      

     This will to continue was manifested[something is off in the previous
     part of the sentence] on Oct. 29, the personal website of Gustavo
     RosarioTorres, the former attorney general of the Mexican state of
     Tobasco was hacked and defaced with a message from Anonymous Mexico
     stating that Rosario was aZeta.  It was also reflected in the tone of
     the Oct. 31 message. Some activists associated with Anonymous clearly
     feel compelled to continue with the campaign due to the outpouring[WC. 
     Did they really get an outpouring? seemed like they got a lot of
     criticism and also support for going against the cartels] of public
     support they received in the wake of the media coverage. According to
     the Oct 31. Video statement: (did we see specific examples of \"public
     support\" or are we just going off of the youtube statement CLAIMING that
     they got lots of support?)

      

     a**we received many expressions of support and solidarity as well as the
     voices of people crying for help. We must remember that we are on the
     side of the people, and we cannot let down the people, especially in
     critical moments like the one they currently live in.a**

      

     We therefore anticipate that some Anonymous activists will continue the
     campaign. We also believe that Los Zetas will respond.

      

     Revenge of the Sith (Yes Kamran, I agree with Isa that Star Wars is
     better than Star Trek. What's Star Trek?) 

      

     The variouscartel groups in Mexico have long used the internet as a
     place to trumpet their triumphs on the battlefield and to taunt and even
     degrade their enemies. The cartels have posted videos of them torturing,
     executing and beheading members of opposing cartels. They also
     frequently monitor narco blogs and sometimeseven post on them.  As
     demonstrated by the blogger killings in Nuevo Laredo in September, Los
     Zetas appear to possess at least some rudimentary capability to trace
     online activity to people in thephysical world. It is not known if they
     employ their own team of dedicated cyber experts or if they rely on
     sources within the Mexican government a** although the most likely
     answer is probably a little of both.  [what about just old-fashioned
     human intelligence?  Many people discuss blogger identities both online
     and offline, something they could've picked up without network-based
     forensics.  'My brother blogs about...' and on from there.  Or by
     tracing the information the blogger had in the real world, and
     eventually getting back to the blogger]

   Tristan was talking about how the cartels were even kidnapping computer
   science students and forcing them to track anonymous down. Need to check
   with him on specifics though

      

      

     In past Anonymous actions, like the Dec. 2010 attack against Pay Pal
     following the Wikileaks case, governments in the U.S. and the UK have
     arrested numerous individuals associated with Anonymous who allegedly
     participated in the attack. In June 2011, Turkey arrested dozens of
     activists associated with Anonymousactions conducted against the Turkish
     government for its efforts to establish a national internet filtering
     system. [Need something to make a point here, maybe something like:] 
     The reality is that there is no such thing as anonymity, on the internet
     or otherwise.  Any action leaves some trail, whether digitial or
     physical.  In the same way that hackers from Anonymous develop exploits
     to access confidential information, law enforcement agencies and even
     cartels could get around encryption, examine patterns of activity and
     investigate leads that in the end identify a real person behind a
     computer. 

      

     Los Zetas, like the other Mexican cartels, do not take affronts lightly.
     Even if Anonymous is not able to provide information that will damage
     Los Zetas smuggling operations, the very fact that this group has
     decided to challenge Los Zetas publicly will result in some sort of
     response. The big question is: do theypossess the capability to
     effectively trace the organizers of the Anonymousaction against them?

      

     One problem with an entity such as Anonymous is that it is intentionally
     amorphous a** it is also as transnational as the internet, and it would
     not be surprising if many of those chosen to participate in the
     operation against Los Zetas are located outside of Mexico in locations
     such as the U.S. and Europe which are outside the immediate reach of Los
     Zetas.(the US is not out of reach, at least not on the border:
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111005-mexico-security-memo-defining-cross-border-violence)

      

     But the amorphous nature of Anonymous can also cut the other way.  If
     Los Zetas pick up and execute some random patrons from an internet cafe,
     behead them and place Guy Fawkesmasks on their heads, it will be very
     difficult to prove that they were not  associated with  Anonymous.  As
     Anonymous noted in their Oct. 31 video, this is dangerous business.(it
     would certainly be within the cartel's capacity to kill innocents and
     blame anonymous in the attempt to intimidate them into stopping their
     activity)

      

      

     The Big Picture

      

     One thing to watch as the Anonymous operation continues is the way in
     which the Mexican public reacts. Many people in the Mexican middle and
     upper classes have been deeply affected by the criminal cartels and
     theviolence the practice. We talk to many people in Mexico who are
     fearful of being kidnapped. In many communities, especially places like
     Juarez, Torreon, Monterrey and Veracruz, businessmen are being caught in
     a terrible bind. On one hand, they are receiving ever-increasing
     extortion demands from the cartels, while at the same time their
     business revenues are dwindling because people are afraid to go out due
     to the violence associated with those same cartels. This is forcing many
     businessmen[enterprises?] out of business. It is also creating a great
     deal of frustration and resentment.

      

     At the same time, Mexico has become one of the most dangerous countries
     in the world for journalists, and many media organizations practice
     heavy self-censorship to protect themselves. In the wake of the
     September blogger killings some of the narco blogs, like Blog del Narco,
     have also exhibited strong signs of fear inspired self-censorship.  
     This means that the legitimate press is not able to be of any real aid
     to the Mexican people.

      

     Mexican citizens are also frustrated with their government, which is
     well-known for corruption.  This is the sentiment feeding Anonymousa**
     original campaign in Veracruz.  This frustration has lead some people to
     begin to talk about

     vigilante groups to fight the cartels a** though that has been attempted
     before in Mexico and as we saw in the case of [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090714_mexico_la_familia_michoacana_expands_its_attacks
     ] La Familia MichoacA!n, which originally began as such a vigilante
     group, vigilantism frequently does not end well.

      

     This is where Anonymous may fit in. With Mexican citizens unable to rely
     on their government, the media or even armed vigilante groups for
     assistance, they may embrace Anonymous and come to view its form of
     cyber vigilantism as an outlet for their frustration -- and a perceived
     safe way to pass oninformation pertaining to cartel activities.  If this
     occurs, we may see people not just in Veracruz and other Zeta controlled
     areas providing information to Anonymous, but citizens from all over the
     country.

      

     Also, in the same way that cartels leak information togovernments in an
     effort to use them as weapons against their rivals, we could also very
     well see groups such as the Sinaloa cartel provide information on Los
     Zetas to Anonymous. This of course would provide even more reason for
     Los Zetas to strike out against the activist collective.

      

     If the Anonymous information campaign does indeed take off, and if
     Anonymous is attacked by Los Zetas, the activists could resort to
     releasing sensitive information to the U.S. Drug Enforcement
     Administration in an attempt to damage Los Zetas. This would be an
     incredible irony in light of the way Anonymous has viewed itself as an
     opponent of the U.S. government in cases like Wikileaks. (Anonymous has
     made it clear that the value they provide is a safe and private medium
     through which to pass this damning information. Their stated priority is
     to publicize information that people send to them. But, do they have a
     way to protect their sources? They likely don't have much collective
     experience in source handling. I imagine a lot of the details they get
     could put their sources in serious trouble. If I were a semi-smart
     Mexican who knew some super detailed information on the cartels, I would
     think long and hard before handing it over to these guys. This may be a
     separate piece entirely, but I think we need a discussion on source
     handling and how good hackers don't necessarily make good intelligence
     agents.)

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   STRATFOR

   T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967

   www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-01 23:46:55",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1016341_re-s-weekly-for-comment-placing-the-anonymous-vs-zeta.html","ben.west@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1016464,"Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta conflict
	in context
","   Cool piece, comments and questions within

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Nate Hughes\" <nate.hughes@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 3:38:44 PM
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict        in context

   On 11/1/11 1:11 PM, scott stewart wrote:

      Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta Conflict in Context

     On Oct. 31, the online activist collective Anonymous posted a message to
     the internet  in which it stated that it was continuing with its
     campaign against the Mexican criminal cartels and their
     governmentsupporters despite the inherent danger.

      

     The messageurged inexperienced activists who might not be practicing
     proper online security measures to abstain from participating. It also
     urged individuals associated with Anonymous to not conduct physical
     pamphlet drops, participate in protests, wear or purchase Guy Fawkes
     masks, or use Guy Fawkes imagery in their internet or physical world
     activities.  Guy Fawkes was British Catholic conspirator who was
     involved in a plot to bomb the British Parliament in 1605, and who has
     become somewhat of an Anarchist icon in the United Kingdom. The British
     celebrate Guy Fawkes Day each year on Nov. 5, and the day has special
     meaning for the anarchists.  

      

     It is not coincidental then, that in their Oct. 6 video, Anonymous set
     Nov. 5 as the deadline for Los Zetas to release the Anonymous associate
     who was allegedly kidnapped in Veracruz by Los Zetas. The Anonymous
     associate was reportedly abducted during an Anonymous leaflet campaign
     called Operation Paperstorm Also you might want to add the date he was
     picked up.

      

     The Oct. 31message acknowledged that the operation against Los Zetas,
     dubbed a**# OpCartela** no space. also, make it clear that this is a
     hashmark associated with twitter tagging (not looking to harp on it, but
     we need to show that we're aware of what that is with at least a
     parenthetical) is dangerous and noted that the collective would be
     assembling a hand-picked group of known and trusted associates to
     participate in a special task force to execute the operation. It asked
     supporters to use a software widget they had developed in order to
     anonymously pass information pertaining to drug trafficking to the task
     force, which will then distribute it. 

      

     With Nov. 5, approaching, and at least some elements of Anonymous not
     backing down on their threats to Los Zetas, we thought it would be
     useful to provide some context to the present conflict between Anonymous
     and Los Zetas and to also address some of its potential implications.

      

     Context

      

     First it issignificant to understand that the epicenter of this event is
     Veracruz, which  has been a very busy place over the past few months in
     terms of Mexicoa**s cartel wars. The port city also serves as a critical
     transportation hub for the narcotics smuggling activities of the Los
     Zetas cartel. Because of this, Stratfor has identified Veracruz as [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111024-mexican-drug-war-update-polarization-continues
     ] a bellweather city thatwill help determine the trajectory of the Los
     Zetas cartel in the coming months. 

      

     One of the big recent developments in Veracruz was the Sinaloa
     cartela**s push into the Zeta stronghold using the [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-mexico-security-memo-zetas-defensive-veracruz
     ] Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG), which using the name
     Matazetas (Zeta killers) conducted some high-profile body dumps of over
     50 alleged low-level Zeta operatives on Sept. 20 and 22.  On Oct. 25,
     Mexican Marines arrested Carlos Arturo Pitalua-Carillo, a**El Bam
     Bam,a** who was Los Zetas plaza boss in Veracruz.  This means that in
     Veracruz at the present time, Los Zetas are feeling pressure from both
     the Government of Mexico and the CJNG.

      

     Into this dynamic flow, we had the Anonymous internet collective begin
     to take action in Veracruz in August. In response to what Anonymous saw
     as the state of Veracruz supporting the Los Zetas cartel could really
     use a bit more about what led an online collective of activists into the
     mexican cartel war and why now? How does this fit with their modus
     operandi and why veracruz now and not any other place at any other time
     in the last year or two? we get at some of this below, but would get to
     the what brought anonymous into this right up front...

     , they launched Operation Paperstorm, in which activists associated with
     this is the leaderless resistance model, and we want to be clear early
     on that many of these 'associates' may be self-styled and self-appointed
     'members' of the group, not unlike ELF or ALF... the Anonymous
     collective distributed leaflets throughout Veracruz claiming the state
     government supports Los Zetas.  They conducted major leaflet
     distributions on Aug. 13, 20, and 29. They also released videos to the
     internet on the anonymous website? or on the website of the veracruz
     government? or on youtube? on Aug. 26 and 29, condemning the State of
     Veracruz. (According to the Oct. 6 Anonymous video, Los Zetas allegedly
     kidnapped one of the activists involved in Operation Paperstorm.)

      

     Activities outside of Veracruz have also played a part in setting the
     stage. On Sept. 13, two people were tortured and killed and their bodies
     hung from a pedestrianoverpass in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas state.  Signs
     left with the bodies signified that Los Zetas had killed the pair
     because they had posted information pertaining to Los Zetas on blogs
     that specialize in reporting on the Mexican cartels. On Sept 26, the
     body of Marisol Macias Casteneda was found beheaded in a park in Nuevo
     Laredo.   Macias who worked for a local newspaper allegedly posted on
     cartel blogs using the nickname a**Laredo Girl.a** A message found with
     her body noted that she was killed by Los Zetas due to her online
     activities.

      

     Following the death of Laredo Girl, Anonymous claimed responsibility for
     a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack conducted against the
     official website of the state of Veracruz. Although she was killed by
     Los Zetas in Nuevo Laredo Tamaulipas, Anonymous said their attack on the
     Veracruz state website was because of the death of Laredo Girl. are we
     implying that this is an indication of the level of sophistication of
     anonymous activists' understanding of mexico and the cartels? I agree
     that a sentence should be added here about what it means that Anonymous
     chose to avenge Laredo Girl's death.

      

     It is also important to recognize that Anonymous was also unhappy with
     the State of Veracruz over the decision of the state to prosecute two
     individuals who had posted false kidnapping reports on Twitter on Aug.
     25. The false reports alleged that a group of children had been abducted
     from a Veracruz school and the panic caused by the report allegedly
     resulted in some two dozen traffic accidents as terrified parents rushed
     to the school to check o n their children. The so-called a**twitter
     terroristsa** were initially charged with offenses that could have
     carried a 30-year sentence. Anonymous, which has absolute freedom of
     speech on the internet as one of its foundational principles, took
     umbrage with this stiff penalty for the Twitter case a** especially
     because it stood in stark contrast with the impunity many cartel figures
     enjoy in Mexico. 

      

      

     Following the Oct. 6 release of the video in which Anonymous threatened
     Los Zetas if they did not release the kidnapped anonymous activist,
     Stratfor began to focus on the story, and in light of the approaching
     Nov. 5 deadline, decided to publish an, [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111028-mexicos-cartels-draw-online-activists-ire
     ] analysis of the topic, which was released on Oct. 28.  

      

     Following the release of our analysis, the topic has received a great
     deal of media coverage. This publicity has generated a very interesting
     response from Anonymous -- one that emphasizes the fast that it is a
     collective of people and not an organization.  As some
     Anonymousactivists were backing off the issue, erasing online user
     accounts, suggesting that the operation against Los Zetas had been a
     hoax and claiming that no activist had been kidnapped, other activists
     suggested that the campaign should be suspended. Still other activists
     became more strident and determined in their posts, urging that the
     campaign continue. Since Anonymous is a collective, activists can pick
     and choose which actions they will participate in. that means in his
     case that those activists who want to refrain from the campaign will and
     those who want to participate will continue it.

      

     This will to continue was manifested on Oct. 29, the personal website of
     Gustavo RosarioTorres, the former attorney general of the Mexican state
     of Tobasco was hacked and defaced with a message from Anonymous Mexico
     stating that Rosario was aZeta Do we know if that claim is true? If so,
     lets note it because it shows that Anonymous does have the ability to
     dig up factual \"dirt\" about the Veracruz govt. officials .  It was also
     reflected in the tone of the Oct. 31 message. Some activists associated
     with Anonymous clearly feel compelled to continue with the campaign due
     to the outpouring of public support they received in the wake of the
     media coverage. According to the Oct 31. Video statement:

      

     a**we received many expressions of support and solidarity as well as the
     voices of people crying for help. We must remember that we are on the
     side of the people, and we cannot let down the people, especially in
     critical moments like the one they currently live in.a**

      

     We therefore anticipate that some Anonymous activists will continue the
     campaign. We also believe that Los Zetas will respond.

      

     Revenge of the Sith (Yes Kamran, I agree with Isa that Star Wars is
     better than Star Trek disagree...star wars all the way) 

      

     The variouscartel groups in Mexico have long used the internet as a
     place to trumpet their triumphs on the battlefield and to taunt and even
     degrade their enemies. The cartels have posted videos of them torturing,
     executing and beheading members of opposing cartels. They also
     frequently monitor narco blogs and sometimeseven post on them.  As
     demonstrated by the blogger killings in Nuevo Laredo in September, Los
     Zetas appear to possess at least some rudimentary capability to trace
     online activity to people in thephysical world. It is not known if they
     employ their own team of dedicated cyber experts or if they rely on
     sources within the Mexican government a** although the most likely
     answer is probably a little of both. 

      

      

     In past Anonymous actions, like the Dec. 2010 attack against Pay Pal
     following the Wikileaks case, governments in the U.S. and the UK have
     arrested numerous individuals associated with Anonymous who allegedly
     participated in the attack. In June 2011, Turkey arrested dozens of
     activists associated with Anonymousactions conducted against the Turkish
     government for its efforts to establish a national internet filtering
     system.

      

     Los Zetas, like the other Mexican cartels, do not take affronts lightly.
     Even if Anonymous is not able to provide information that will damage
     Los Zetas smuggling operations, the very fact that this group has
     decided to challenge Los Zetas publicly will result in some sort of
     response. The big question is: do theypossess the capability to
     effectively trace the organizers of the Anonymousaction against them?

      

     One problem with an entity such as Anonymous is that it is intentionally
     amorphous a** it is also as transnational as the internet, and it would
     not be surprising if many of those chosen to participate in the
     operation against Los Zetas are located outside of Mexico in locations
     such as the U.S. and Europe which are outside the immediate reach of Los
     Zetas.

      

     But the amorphous nature of Anonymous can also cut the other way.  If
     Los Zetas pick up and execute some random patrons from an internet cafe,
     behead them and place Guy Fawkesmasks on their heads, it will be very
     difficult to prove that they were not  associated with  Anonymous.  As
     Anonymous noted in their Oct. 31 video, this is dangerous business.

      

      

     The Big Picture

      

     One thing to watch as the Anonymous operation continues is the way in
     which the Mexican public reacts. Many people in the Mexican middle and
     upper classes have been deeply affected by the criminal cartels and
     theviolence the practice. We talk to many people in Mexico who are
     fearful of being kidnapped. In many communities, especially places like
     Juarez, Torreon, Monterrey and Veracruz, businessmen are being caught in
     a terrible bind. On one hand, they are receiving ever-increasing
     extortion demands from the cartels, while at the same time their
     business revenues are dwindling because people are afraid to go out due
     to the violence associated with those same cartels. This is forcing many
     businessmen out of business. It is also creating a great deal of
     frustration and resentment.

      

     At the same time, Mexico has become one of the most dangerous countries
     in the world for journalists, and many media companies practice heavy
     self-censorship to protect themselves. In the wake of the September
     blogger killings some of the narco blogs, like Blog del Narco, have also
     exhibited strong signs of fear inspired self-censorship.   This means
     that the legitimate press is not able to be of any real aid to the
     Mexican people. watch normative...

      

     Mexican citizens are also frustrated with their government, which is
     well-known for corruption.  This is the sentiment feeding Anonymousa**
     original campaign in Veracruz.  This frustration has lead some people to
     begin to talk about

     vigilante groups to fight the cartels a** though that has been attempted
     before in Mexico and as we saw in the case of [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090714_mexico_la_familia_michoacana_expands_its_attacks
     ] La Familia MichoacA!n, which originally began as such a vigilante
     group, vigilantism frequently does not end well.

      

     This is where Anonymous may fit in. With Mexican citizens unable to rely
     on their government, the media or even armed vigilante groups for
     assistance, they may embrace Anonymous and come to view its form of
     cyber vigilantism as an outlet for their frustration -- and a safe way
     to pass oninformation pertaining to cartel activities.  If this occurs,
     we may see people not just in Veracruz and other Zeta controlled areas
     providing information to Anonymous, but citizens from all over the
     country.The only thing is that I don't see what Anonymous can really do
     to los Zetas.  I mean they would have the dirt on officials in the
     government who may be Zetas, but what will the Mexican government do
     about it? I don't see the US govt. being able to do anything about that
     either.  For example, what happened to the guy Gustavo Torres in
     response to the claim by Anonymous.

      

     Also, in the same way that cartels leak information togovernments in an
     effort to use them as weapons against their rivals, we could also very
     well see groups such as the Sinaloa cartel provide information on Los
     Zetas to Anonymous. This of course would provide even more reason for
     Los Zetas to strike out against the activist collective.

      
     one interesting angle is that anonymous depends on anonymity -- and
     particularly novice self-styled, self-appointed members are not
     necessarily in a position to adequately guard their own autonomy

     Also, has autonomous struck out at entities as violent and capable as
     the cartels before? or is this a new move (meaning that even the
     experienced people have no practical experience in making judgments
     about dangers to individuals and the life-and-death consequences of
     dealing with the cartels...)

     If the Anonymous information campaign does indeed take off, and if
     Anonymous is attacked by Los Zetas, the activists could resort to
     releasing sensitive information what kind of sensitive information? to
     the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in an attempt to damage Los
     Zetas. This would be an incredible irony in light of the way Anonymous
     has viewed itself as an opponent of the U.S. government in cases like
     Wikileaks.  do we have any indication that they would do this rather
     than just making it public? What to be careful if this is how we are
     going to conclude...
","2011-11-01 22:32:58",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1016464_re-s-weekly-for-comment-placing-the-anonymous-vs-zeta.html","ashley.harrison@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1017020,"Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta conflict
	in context
","     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 4:45:43 PM
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict        in context

   On 11/1/11 1:11 PM, scott stewart wrote:

      Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta Conflict in Context

     On Oct. 31, the online activist collective Anonymous posted a message to
     the internet  in which it stated that it was continuing with its
     campaign against the Mexican criminal cartels and their
     governmentsupporters despite the inherent danger.

      

     The messageurged inexperienced activists who might not be practicing
     proper online security measures to abstain from participating. It also
     urged individuals associated with Anonymous to not conduct physical
     pamphlet drops, participate in protests, wear or purchase Guy Fawkes
     masks, or use Guy Fawkes imagery in their internet or physical world
     activities.[Is this universally or just in Mexico?  The former points to
     problems with LE cracking down on them, the latter specifically to
     cartel retribution]  Guy Fawkes was British Catholic conspirator who was
     involved in a plot to bomb the British Parliament in 1605, and who has
     become somewhat of an Anarchist icon in the United Kingdom. The British
     celebrate Guy Fawkes Day each year on Nov. 5, and the day has special
     meaning for the anarchists.  

      

     It is not coincidental then, that in their Oct. 6 video, Anonymous set
     Nov. 5 as the deadline for Los Zetas to release the Anonymous associate
     who was allegedly kidnapped in Veracruz by Los Zetas. The Anonymous
     associate was reportedly abducted during an Anonymous leaflet campaign
     called Operation Paperstorm.

      

     The Oct. 31message acknowledged that the operation against Los Zetas,
     dubbed a**# OpCartela** is dangerous and noted that the collective would
     be assembling a hand-picked group of known and trusted associates to
     participate in a special task force to execute the operation.[hahahaha,
     this says something about leadership] It asked supporters to use a
     software widget[WC. is this the correct term?] they had developed in
     order to anonymously pass information pertaining to drug trafficking to
     the task force, which will then distribute it. 

      

     With Nov. 5, approaching, and at least some elements of Anonymous not
     backing down on their threats to Los Zetas, we thought it would be
     useful to provide some context to the present conflict between Anonymous
     and Los Zetas and to also address some of its potential implications.

      

     Context

      

     First it issignificant to understand that the physical? geographic?
     epicenter of this event is Veracruz, which  has been a very busy place
     over the past few months in terms of Mexicoa**s cartel wars. The port
     city also serves as a critical transportation hub for the narcotics
     smuggling activities of the Los Zetas cartel. Because of this, Stratfor
     has identified Veracruz as [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111024-mexican-drug-war-update-polarization-continues
     ] a bellweather city thatwill help determine the trajectory of the Los
     Zetas cartel in the coming months. 

      

     One of the big recent developments in Veracruz was the Sinaloa
     cartela**s push into the Zeta stronghold using the [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-mexico-security-memo-zetas-defensive-veracruz
     ] Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG), which using the name
     Matazetas (Zeta killers) conducted some high-profile body dumps of over
     50 alleged low-level Zeta operatives on Sept. 20 and 22.  On Oct. 25,
     Mexican Marines arrested Carlos Arturo Pitalua-Carillo, a**El Bam
     Bam,a** who was Los Zetas plaza boss in Veracruz.  This means that in
     Veracruz at the present time, Los Zetas are feeling pressure from both
     the Government of Mexico and the CJNG.

      

     Into this dynamic flow, we had the Anonymous internet collective begin
     to take action in Veracruz in August. In response to what Anonymous saw
     as the state of Veracruz supporting the Los Zetas cartel, they launched
     Operation Paperstorm, in which activists who associated themselves with
     the Anonymous collective distributed leaflets throughout Veracruz
     claiming the state government supports Los Zetas.  They conducted major
     leaflet distributions on Aug. 13, 20, and 29. They also released videos
     to the internet on Aug. 26 and 29, condemning the State of Veracruz.
     (According to the Oct. 6 Anonymous video, Los Zetas allegedly kidnapped
     one of the activists involved in Operation Paperstorm.)

      

     Activities outside of Veracruz have also played a part in setting the
     stage. On Sept. 13, two people were tortured and killed and their bodies
     hung from a pedestrianoverpass in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas state.  Signs
     left with the bodies signified that Los Zetas had killed the pair
     because they had posted information pertaining to Los Zetas on blogs
     that specialize in reporting on the Mexican cartels. On Sept 26, the
     body of Marisol Macias Casteneda was found beheaded in a park in Nuevo
     Laredo.   Macias who worked for a local newspaper allegedly posted on
     cartel blogs using the nickname a**Laredo Girl.a** A message found with
     her body noted that she was killed by Los Zetas due to her online
     activities.

      

     Following the death of Laredo Girl, Anonymous claimed responsibility for
     a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack conducted against the
     official website of the state of Veracruz. Although she was killed by
     Los Zetas in Nuevo Laredo Tamaulipas, Anonymous said their attack on the
     Veracruz state website was because of the death of Laredo Girl. [can you
     attempt to explain why they linked it with veracruz?]

      

     It is also important to recognize that some members of Anonymous [again
     I hate referring to Anonymous as one entity] was also unhappy with the
     State of Veracruz over the decision of the state to prosecute two
     individuals who had posted false kidnapping reports on Twitter on Aug.
     25. The false reports alleged that a group of children had been abducted
     from a Veracruz school and the panic caused by the report allegedly
     resulted in some two dozen traffic accidents as terrified parents rushed
     to the school to check o n their children. The so-called a**twitter
     terroristsa** were initially charged with offenses that could have
     carried a 30-year sentence. Those involved in this campaign from
     Anonymous, which claims absolute freedom of speech on the internet as
     one of its foundational principles, took umbrage with this stiff penalty
     for the Twitter case a** especially because it stood in stark contrast
     with the impunity many cartel figures enjoy in Mexico. 

      

      

     Following the Oct. 6 release of the video in which Anonymous threatened
     Los Zetas if they did not release the kidnapped anonymous activist,
     Stratfor began to focus on the story, and in light of the approaching
     Nov. 5 deadline, decided to publish an, [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111028-mexicos-cartels-draw-online-activists-ire
     ] analysis of the topic, which was released on Oct. 28.  

      

     Following the release of our analysis, the topic has received a great
     deal of media coverage. This publicity has generated a very interesting
     response from Anonymous -- one that emphasizes the fast that it is a
     collective of people and not an organization.  As some
     Anonymousactivists were backing off the issue, erasing online user
     accounts[does this mean accounts of people in support of the attack?],
     suggesting that the operation against Los Zetas had been a hoax and
     claiming that no activist had been kidnapped, other activists suggested
     that the campaign should be suspended. Still other activists became more
     strident and determined in their posts, urging that the campaign
     continue. Since Anonymous is a collective, activists can pick and choose
     which actions they will participate in. that means in his case that
     those activists who want to refrain from the campaign will and those who
     want to participate will continue it.  [i see how this paragraph fits
     into your analysis the way you have it written, but I think it might go
     better at the front.  You could use the 'anonymous discussion' as a
     trigger, explain it's \"collective\" qualities and then go into the rest
     of the analysis.  This way I feel much less bad about how we refer to
     'anonymous']

      

     This will to continue was manifested[something is off in the previous
     part of the sentence] on Oct. 29, the personal website of Gustavo
     RosarioTorres, the former attorney general of the Mexican state of
     Tobasco was hacked and defaced with a message from Anonymous Mexico
     stating that Rosario was aZeta.  It was also reflected in the tone of
     the Oct. 31 message. Some activists associated with Anonymous clearly
     feel compelled to continue with the campaign due to the outpouring[WC. 
     Did they really get an outpouring? seemed like they got a lot of
     criticism and also support for going against the cartels] of public
     support they received in the wake of the media coverage. According to
     the Oct 31. Video statement: (did we see specific examples of \"public
     support\" or are we just going off of the youtube statement CLAIMING that
     they got lots of support?)

      

     a**we received many expressions of support and solidarity as well as the
     voices of people crying for help. We must remember that we are on the
     side of the people, and we cannot let down the people, especially in
     critical moments like the one they currently live in.a**

      

     We therefore anticipate that some Anonymous activists will continue the
     campaign. We also believe that Los Zetas will respond.

      

     Revenge of the Sith (Yes Kamran, I agree with Isa that Star Wars is
     better than Star Trek. What's Star Trek?) 

      

     The variouscartel groups in Mexico have long used the internet as a
     place to trumpet their triumphs on the battlefield and to taunt and even
     degrade their enemies. The cartels have posted videos of them torturing,
     executing and beheading members of opposing cartels. They also
     frequently monitor narco blogs and sometimeseven post on them.  As
     demonstrated by the blogger killings in Nuevo Laredo in September, Los
     Zetas appear to possess at least some rudimentary capability to trace
     online activity to people in thephysical world. It is not known if they
     employ their own team of dedicated cyber experts or if they rely on
     sources within the Mexican government a** although the most likely
     answer is probably a little of both.  [what about just old-fashioned
     human intelligence?  Many people discuss blogger identities both online
     and offline, something they could've picked up without network-based
     forensics.  'My brother blogs about...' and on from there.  Or by
     tracing the information the blogger had in the real world, and
     eventually getting back to the blogger]

   Tristan was talking about how the cartels were even kidnapping computer
   science students and forcing them to track anonymous down. Need to check
   with him on specifics though

      

      

     In past Anonymous actions, like the Dec. 2010 attack against Pay Pal
     following the Wikileaks case, governments in the U.S. and the UK have
     arrested numerous individuals associated with Anonymous who allegedly
     participated in the attack. In June 2011, Turkey arrested dozens of
     activists associated with Anonymousactions conducted against the Turkish
     government for its efforts to establish a national internet filtering
     system. [Need something to make a point here, maybe something like:] 
     The reality is that there is no such thing as anonymity, on the internet
     or otherwise.  Any action leaves some trail, whether digitial or
     physical.  In the same way that hackers from Anonymous develop exploits
     to access confidential information, law enforcement agencies and even
     cartels could get around encryption, examine patterns of activity and
     investigate leads that in the end identify a real person behind a
     computer. 

      

     Los Zetas, like the other Mexican cartels, do not take affronts lightly.
     Even if Anonymous is not able to provide information that will damage
     Los Zetas smuggling operations, the very fact that this group has
     decided to challenge Los Zetas publicly will result in some sort of
     response. The big question is: do theypossess the capability to
     effectively trace the organizers of the Anonymousaction against them?

      

     One problem with an entity such as Anonymous is that it is intentionally
     amorphous a** it is also as transnational as the internet, and it would
     not be surprising if many of those chosen to participate in the
     operation against Los Zetas are located outside of Mexico in locations
     such as the U.S. and Europe which are outside the immediate reach of Los
     Zetas.(the US is not out of reach, at least not on the border:
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111005-mexico-security-memo-defining-cross-border-violence)

      

     But the amorphous nature of Anonymous can also cut the other way.  If
     Los Zetas pick up and execute some random patrons from an internet cafe,
     behead them and place Guy Fawkesmasks on their heads, it will be very
     difficult to prove that they were not  associated with  Anonymous.  As
     Anonymous noted in their Oct. 31 video, this is dangerous business.(it
     would certainly be within the cartel's capacity to kill innocents and
     blame anonymous in the attempt to intimidate them into stopping their
     activity)

      

      

     The Big Picture

      

     One thing to watch as the Anonymous operation continues is the way in
     which the Mexican public reacts. Many people in the Mexican middle and
     upper classes have been deeply affected by the criminal cartels and
     theviolence the practice. We talk to many people in Mexico who are
     fearful of being kidnapped. In many communities, especially places like
     Juarez, Torreon, Monterrey and Veracruz, businessmen are being caught in
     a terrible bind. On one hand, they are receiving ever-increasing
     extortion demands from the cartels, while at the same time their
     business revenues are dwindling because people are afraid to go out due
     to the violence associated with those same cartels. This is forcing many
     businessmen[enterprises?] out of business. It is also creating a great
     deal of frustration and resentment.

      

     At the same time, Mexico has become one of the most dangerous countries
     in the world for journalists, and many media organizations practice
     heavy self-censorship to protect themselves. In the wake of the
     September blogger killings some of the narco blogs, like Blog del Narco,
     have also exhibited strong signs of fear inspired self-censorship.  
     This means that the legitimate press is not able to be of any real aid
     to the Mexican people.

      

     Mexican citizens are also frustrated with their government, which is
     well-known for corruption.  This is the sentiment feeding Anonymousa**
     original campaign in Veracruz.  This frustration has lead some people to
     begin to talk about

     vigilante groups to fight the cartels a** though that has been attempted
     before in Mexico and as we saw in the case of [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090714_mexico_la_familia_michoacana_expands_its_attacks
     ] La Familia MichoacA!n, which originally began as such a vigilante
     group, vigilantism frequently does not end well.

      

     This is where Anonymous may fit in. With Mexican citizens unable to rely
     on their government, the media or even armed vigilante groups for
     assistance, they may embrace Anonymous and come to view its form of
     cyber vigilantism as an outlet for their frustration -- and a perceived
     safe way to pass oninformation pertaining to cartel activities.  If this
     occurs, we may see people not just in Veracruz and other Zeta controlled
     areas providing information to Anonymous, but citizens from all over the
     country.

      

     Also, in the same way that cartels leak information togovernments in an
     effort to use them as weapons against their rivals, we could also very
     well see groups such as the Sinaloa cartel provide information on Los
     Zetas to Anonymous. This of course would provide even more reason for
     Los Zetas to strike out against the activist collective.

      

     If the Anonymous information campaign does indeed take off, and if
     Anonymous is attacked by Los Zetas, the activists could resort to
     releasing sensitive information to the U.S. Drug Enforcement
     Administration in an attempt to damage Los Zetas. This would be an
     incredible irony in light of the way Anonymous has viewed itself as an
     opponent of the U.S. government in cases like Wikileaks. (Anonymous has
     made it clear that the value they provide is a safe and private medium
     through which to pass this damning information. Their stated priority is
     to publicize information that people send to them. But, do they have a
     way to protect their sources? They likely don't have much collective
     experience in source handling. I imagine a lot of the details they get
     could put their sources in serious trouble. If I were a semi-smart
     Mexican who knew some super detailed information on the cartels, I would
     think long and hard before handing it over to these guys. This may be a
     separate piece entirely, but I think we need a discussion on source
     handling and how good hackers don't necessarily make good intelligence
     agents.)

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   STRATFOR

   T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967

   www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-01 23:42:42",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1017020_re-s-weekly-for-comment-placing-the-anonymous-vs-zeta.html","ben.west@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1017421,"Re: G3* - ARGENTINA/MIL - Govt secretly developing mid-range missiles
","   How much time, technology and money does this type of improvement/upgrade
   take?  I know they've been at it for a year, but Argentina has a tendency
   to talk big but not have enough money or organization for follow through. 
   (for example Paris Club debt - they announced that payment in Fall 2008
   and still have not negotiated terms with the Club nor has the
   govt/Congress agreed on using reserves to pay the debt)  Just want to
   check how realistic implementing these changes is.

   On 11/23/2010 9:28 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

     In Dec. 2009, Arg test launched the Gradicom PXC, which used solid fuel
     tech to launch a little bit over 100 km. The aim now is to improve the
     Condor II missile (which was reportedly abandoned by the Menem admin in
     the 90s). The Condor II was supposed to have a range of 1,000 miles and
     a payload of 500 kilos.  The med-term goal, according to this report, is
     for Arg to develop mid-range missiles that could carry a payload of at
     least 500 kilos up to 300 km, which would reach the Falklands.
     Nate, any thoughts on this?
     On Nov 23, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Allison Fedirka wrote:

       Falklands are about 300 miles (482 km) off the coast of Argentina. 
       I'm not much of missile expert to comment on the weapon's capabilities

       Also, to put this in context.  Yesterday was a new holiday in
       Argentina - Dia de la nacionalidad.  So there was lots of hype about
       Falkland sovereignty, etc.

         Rodger says look into this see if they can hit the falklands

         On 11/23/10 8:28 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:

           Argentine Govt secretly developing mid-range missiles
           dialogbot@smtp.stratfor.com
           - Buenos Aires Perfil's Fernando Oz reports on 20 November that
           the Defence Ministry is working \"in secret\" on the development of
           a medium-range missile, Gradicom PXC 2009, and tested it
           successfully in Cordoba last December.The Planning Ministry is
           also involved in the project and plans to produce the missile on
           an industrial scale.Nobody in the Defense Ministry wants to
           comment and the US Embassy said that \"we will make no comments.\"
           En secreto, el Gobierno disena un misil nacional de mediano
           alcance
           21 de Noviembre de 2010 07:41  -
           http://www.contexto.com.ar/vernota.php?id=39144

           Desde el Ministerio de Defensa desarrollan el arma y el ministro
           De Vido lo alienta. Las Fuerzas Armadas argentinas lo usarian y el
           remanente se exportaria. Sucede al Condor II, el proyecto que veto
           EEUU.

           El Gobierno trabaja en secreto en el desarrollo de un misil de
           mediano alcance que podria igualar las prestaciones del Condor II.

           La prueba experimental del cohete Gradicom PXC 2009, que se
           realizo hace un ano, fue motivo de festejos en el Edificio
           Libertador. Ahora, los cientificos y tecnicos que trabajan en el
           proyecto tienen el visto bueno para repotenciarlo, dotarlo de un
           moderno sistema de guiado, y producirlo a escala industrial.

           Despues de realizar una profunda transformacion de la politica de
           derechos humanos en las Fuerza Armadas, la ministra de Defensa,
           Nilda Garre, busca modernizar los sistemas de defensa y ampliar la
           capacidad disuasiva del pais a traves \"del crecimiento tecnologico
           y la produccion para la defensa\".

           A principios de diciembre de 2009 se probo con exito, en la
           localidad cordobesa de Serrezuela, el lanzamiento del cohete
           Gradicom PXC 2009.

           Su combustible solido lo hace apto para aplicaciones militares,
           aunque aun no se lo utilizo con cargas explosivas y el dia de su
           bautismo de lanzamiento apenas supero los cien kilometros.

           \"Quisieramos que el nuevo misil supere los 500 kilometros de
           distancia, que tenga una propulsion con separacion y guiado, pero
           falta mucho para eso\", confio una fuente cientifica del Ministerio
           de Defensa que esta trabajando en el proyecto.

           El proyecto Gradicom (Grandes Dimensiones Compuestos) es mejorar
           \"tecnologicamente\" al misil Condor II, que fue desmantelado por el
           ex presidente Carlos Menem en los 90, como consecuencia de la
           politica exterior basada en las \"relaciones carnales\" con los
           Estados Unidos.

           El Condor II tenia un alcance de mil kilometros y podia
           transportar una bomba de 500 kilos. Por ser un misil de alcance
           medio y su uso estaba cuestionado por el Regimen de Control de la
           Tecnologia Misilistica (MTCR).

           El MTCR, establecido en abril de 1987, es una sociedad informal y
           voluntaria entre 34 paises -Argentina se incorporo en 1993- para
           prevenir la proliferacion de tecnologia misilistica. Una de sus
           misiones es contener la extension de los sistemas sin tripulacion
           de la entrega para las armas nucleares, especificamente los que
           podrian llevar una carga util minima de 500 km, al menos, hasta
           300 km.

            

           Pero en el Edificio Libertador aseguran que el proyecto Gradicom
           no viola ningun tratado internacional.

           Una segunda fuente, allegada a la Secretaria de Planeamiento del
           Ministerio de Defensa, reconocio a este diario que se trabaja para
           \"aumentar el alcance\" del misil, aunque aclaro que \"todo se hace
           dentro del marco de los tratados internacionales firmados por el
           pais\".

           La idea del Ministerio de Planificacion, tambien involucrado en el
           proyecto, es potenciar el nuevo misil y llevarlo a escala
           industrial para la exportacion y uso militar de las Fuerzas
           Armadas argentinas. Pero para eso, faltan otros pasos: \"Lo
           primero, que fue la propulsion, ya esta. Ahora estamos trabajando
           en la propulsion con separacion, y una tercera etapa sera la
           telemetria, los sensores. Lo mas complejo es el sistema de guiado
           y control completo\", explico uno de los cientificos que trabaja en
           el proyecto que se esta disenando en el Centro de Investigaciones
           Cientificas y Tecnicas de las Fuerzas Armadas (Citefa).

           \"No vamos hacer comentarios sobre el tema\", se limitaron a decir
           en la Embajada de Estados Unidos en Buenos Aires, cuando PERFIL
           consulto sobre el nuevo emprendimiento militar argentino. En los
           90, fueron las presiones norteamericanas las que terminaron con el
           Condor II.

           En la cartera que conduce Garre, nadie quiere hablar sobre las
           etapas del misterioso misil. \"Se informo lo que se debia en su
           momento, el resto es secreto porque se esta trabajando\", se
           disculparon en el entorno de la titular de Defensa. El ministro de
           Planificacion, Julio De Vido, es uno de los mas entusiasmados con
           el proyecto que en la Casa Rosada califican como \"una cuestion de
           Estado\".

           \"Vamos a poner Fabricaciones Militares (que depende de
           Planificacion) a disposicion del Ministerio de Defensa para tener
           la posibilidad de fabricar en serie el PCX 2009\", aseguro De Vido
           cuando los tecnicos civiles y militares le explicaron cuales eran
           los proximos objetivos.

           Garre y los ascensos

           La ministra de Defensa, Nilda Garre, afirmo en relacion con la
           polemica por los ascensos de los oficiales superiores de las
           Fuerzas Armadas que \"la Presidenta, como Comandante en Jefe de las
           Fuerzas Armadas, tiene facultades discrecionales y por razones de
           merito, oportunidad y conveniencia puede seleccionar o sacar de la
           lista que le han elevado las Fuerzas, a traves del Ministerio de
           Defensa, alguno de esos oficiales propuestos\".

           La funcionaria explico que \"de ninguna manera importa de quien es
           hijo el candidato a considerar\", y agrego que \"hay gente que con
           su accionar y predica ha demostrado una vocacion democratica
           clara\".

           Senalo que \"algunos de ellos son hijos de personas que estan en
           este momento condenadas por delitos graves\".

           La funcionaria cito como ejemplos, el cargo del actual general de
           brigada Diaz Bessone, con quien \"he tratado esporadicamente y es
           un hombre democratico, claramente no suscribe las ideas de su
           padre\". En este sentido, explico Garre, \"se elige el mejor
           perfil\". /perfil.com

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com
","2010-11-23 16:39:35",1,"2012-02-27 22:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1017421_re-g3-argentina-mil-govt-secretly-developing-mid-range.html","allison.fedirka@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1017647,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   As far as Aurora, I haven't followed it closely. Did they ever identify
   the attackers or number of attackers? I thought the target set was the
   only thing that led people to believe the Chinese government was
   responsible.

   2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
   responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating cyber
   intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case HUMINT is
   just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT capabilities does not
   indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers. NSA may have there own
   department for tracking hackers but it does not make it SIGINT.

   Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

   Wikipedia provides an indepth explanation on SIGINT . But in short, SIGINT
   is the capability in exploiting signals provided by communication devices,
   and what can be obtained by exploiting the signals. Combining computer
   network operations and SIGINT is innaccurate, because while SIGINT may be
   used with other intelligence disciplines in order to identify a hacker, it
   is not necessary and is no more related than any other intel discipline.
   SIGINT could help you identify a computer devices (not the operator)
   emitting a signal (wifi), and cryptanalysis, which is also separate from
   SIGINT but often used in conjunction, could help in providing methods to
   decrypt messages over a network, but SIGINT wouldn't obtain those
   messages.

   In order to exploit computer network operations, the operators involved
   are specifically trained in computer science disciplines and technologies
   tailored specifically for computer activity.

   NSA also is the primary agency for cryptanalysis. Because of technological
   demands of SIGINT and cryptanalysis, NSA has enormous resources in R&D, so
   I can see why the USG would move some CNO to NSA. But their SIGINT
   capabilities are not indicators of CNO capabilities.

   Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary labor for
   the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are discussing operations on
   the scale of causing physical damage to extremely sensitive equipment .
   Well, this is an example of a cyber attack that matters, whereeas
   Anonymous so far has not mattered.  You chose the most prolific example of
   a cyber attack (which the whole operation consisted mainly outside of the
   cyber attack itself). Anything that falls short of this doesn't matter?
   Define what matters. None of anonymous' attacks have physically damaged
   secret Iranian nuclear facilities, but I think you are downplaying too
   much the significance of exposing corporate secrets, halting businesses'
   revenues, and embarrassing State actors by defacing their websites.

   On 10/24/11 5:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     On 10/24/11 5:07 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already The USG
         arrested 10 Russian spies last year, are you willing to say foreign
         intel is not capable of conducting espionage undetected? No, of
         course not.  But I also would not argue that the SVR is so good to
         be immune to detection, as you are arguing with hackers.  I'm saying
         they are more detectable than you think.  There is no such thing as
         truly anonymous.  Everythign leaves a trail.  Will that trail in
         every instance lead to a single individual? no.  but it can lead to
         a place, an organization, and often, an individual. 

         2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
         responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating
         cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case
         HUMINT is just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT
         capabilities does not indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers.
         NSA may have there own department for tracking hackers but it does
         not make it SIGINT.

         Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

         The question is if the attack is high priority enough.  Many people
         assume there is no attribution because there is no response, but I
         don't think that is accurate.  Many people say this, because no
         attribution is one reason for no response.  Yes, they do, and if
         they think that is the primary reason for lack of response, then I
         think they are wrong. 

         3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new laptop
         and start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack involves much
         more than a recently bought laptop.  In the same way there is an
         attack cycle for a terrorist attack or crime, there is one for a
         cyber attack.  A very simple attack may be as hard to trace as a
         nearly-random mugging in the dark in a neighborhood with much more
         serious crime and no CCTV cameras.  A more complicated attack,
         however, involves pre-operational surveillance, developing exploits,
         developing programs and code, gaining access, exploiting that, and
         carrying out an attack.  Discovering exploits and writing code can
         be done entirely offline, out of sight of law enforcement or intel
         agencies. Pre-operational surveillance and gaining access (the point
         of the exploit you write offline) would fit in my example. The point
         is, if you don't link your computer to identifiable information, you
         remain anonymous. Just like people use certain methods to build
         IEDs, people use certain mehtods to design programs and code for
         cyber attacks.  Over time, those methods become identifiable and
         more and more attributable. This is, for example, how AURORA is
         linked back to the Chinese.  and very specific Chinese, I may add.
         Being connected or unconnected doesn't matter, eventually you have
         to use what you develop, or copy from someone, and all of those
         things can be analyzed.   And that takes time, giving more time for
         your exposure Exposure comes from network activity with the target,
         a lot of the pre-operational phase of an attack can occur without
         network activity. Look at everything that went into Stuxnet as a
         great example, that couldn't be done with one person with a new
         laptop. Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of
         necessary labor for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are
         discussing operations on the scale of causing physical damage to
         extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of a cyber
         attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not mattered.  
         All of this activity provides activity and evidence which helps for
         attribution.  Of course it is always possible to develop an attack,
         just like any other operation, that even the best law enforcement
         and national intelligence agencies have trouble or cannot
         attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that it's very difficult for
         someone to successfully use Anonymous as a cover and have NSA, GHQ,
         MID, Aman, etc, be unable to attribute it.  How do you know if NSA
         or GHQ is effective in identifying hackers?I don't, but I'm
         confident they are far better than you are allowing for.    They may
         not choose to cover it if it is small scale crime, however. 
         On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

           I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored
           cyber warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing
           that, since you can conduct a cyber attack without associating
           with a hacker group and still deny / cover actions on behalf of
           the State. An individual attacking US computer assets from China,
           may be working by himself or on behalf of the Chinese government,
           but unless the US has other intel on the Chinese government's
           cyber warfare activities in order to corroborate there is little
           capability to distinguish.

           It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
           operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets from
           SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual responsible
           for hacking State run servers. In the past, I have turned to
           SIGINT organizations for collections on computer related material,
           but this was due to the US being behind in cyber warfare, and not
           knowing where to assign responsibility. However, this has changed
           dramatically in the last couple of years.

           Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As an
           extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go to a
           Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the online
           activity to something revealing (accessing personal email
           accounts, tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop,
           etc..), and begin hacking government email accounts then never use
           the laptop again. Unless LEA could get an accurate description of
           my appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible security
           cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

           Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to
           these enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied to
           specific computer-related activities because of the difficulty in
           identifying individuals.

           I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown,
           would be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a common
           participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a State?
           Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that State
           agent organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter buddies, what
           signs could a LEA look for to distinguish?

           On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

             In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a
             bit)

             1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything
             actually harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't, but
             i'm very doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first real
             case where they could do some minor damage--to individual
             people, not not to an organization or anything that would come
             as a serious or strategic threat. 

             2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is actually
             pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as a cover,
             but that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could probably
             still be attributed if important enough to those agencies.  The
             recent attack on Sony actually brings this issue up- Whoever is
             calling themselves anonymous denies they did it.  And keep in
             mind how much they have claimed an publicized attacks in the
             past, even before they were carried out.  The attack on the
             Playstation Network was more sophisticated than anonymous' usual
             work (though potentially coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS
             attacks that distracted Sony's IT security).  But whoever did
             it, again, no real damage came of it.  Congress is holding
             hearings over data security, but this is no different than the
             OC groups stealing your credit card information.  LE will go
             after them, have some success, but the threat is not that
             large. 
             On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

               Link: themeData

               I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to
               have a broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no
               nothing, or almost nothing about what this group is and the
               threat it poses. Reviewing their list of attacks
               (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most
               of the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood
               of the internet . The interesting thing when it comes to their
               interactions with the cartels is the dubious role they play:
               at the same time they can be fighting crime by revealing
               cartel members/supporters, but they can also put lives in
               risk.

               However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
               Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can
               conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
               (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

               If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
               websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to
               know more about these guys. Who they are? What are they
               interested in? How they operate? Who they have targeted so
               far? How can I defend myself from them? In what countries are
               they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use them
               to achieve any particular goal?

               On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                 nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything
                 else can build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the
                 threat they pose to innocent people caught up in the terror
                 that is Mexico.  By focusing on journalists or taxi drivers
                 they show little understanding of the situation.  This has
                 long term implications in not just Mexico.  They don't
                 consider the consequences of their actions and they act
                 without understanding the environment.  It was the same when
                 they released information on the Sony Playstation network to
                 protest Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

                 On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                   Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of
                   discussing possible cartel responses, the focus is on what
                   type of threat Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video
                   released by Anonymous, threatens revealing personal
                   information on cartels as well as states a member had been
                   kidnapped. I could not find any sources outside of
                   Anonymous' claims of the individual being kidnapped.
                   According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and
                   Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual
                   posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the Operation
                   Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

                   Link: themeData
                   Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
                   distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government
                   websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with
                   a statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels,
                   including a video depicting a masked individual addressing
                   Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the most recent
                   video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                   criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing
                   identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
                   journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker
                   group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member
                   otherwise face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this
                   coming November 5th was mentioned as a day cartels could
                   expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of releasing a
                   kidnapped member are not met. The potential of conflict
                   between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents a
                   unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out
                   at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on
                   cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

                   What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                        o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical
                   security threat to Mexican cartels.
                        o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit
                   online media
                        o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico
                   to lash out at cartels

                   While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to
                   pose a threat
                        o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
                   identifiable information on cartel members
                        o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could
                   acquire on cartels
                        o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
                   communications, identifiable information on cartels
                   members have to be considered in the realm of
                   possibilities for
                               Anonymous
                               o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability
                   to reveal illicit online activity (child pornography
                   rings)

                   Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
                   ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
                   result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
                   limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting in
                   front of a computer, but this may blind them to any
                   possible retribution. They may not even know the impact of
                   any online assault of cartels.
                        o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
                   journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand
                   some of these individuals are forced to collude with
                   cartels.               Taxi drivers are often victims of
                   extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the
                   identity of these individuals will not have a significant
                   impact on cartel                   operations. Politicans
                   have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
                   Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be
                   any consequences from this.
                        o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent
                   cartels are willing to go protect their operations.
                           o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                           o    Cartels have reached out to the computer
                   science community before, coercing computer science majors
                   into working for them.
                           o    This provides the cartels with the
                   possibility of discovering hackers within Mexico.

                    

                   On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                     Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the
                     idea but there are several issues to address and fix
                     here.

                     These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with
                     the discussion:

                          o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why.
                     that's fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                          o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                     difference between stealing bank records from government
                     computers and overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                          o     There's no thought out process of what sort
                     of information could anon have on the cartels. What kind
                     of info is kept online and accessible to potential
                     attacks? You seem to be talking about identities, whose?
                     If anything it's dirty cops, politicians and businessmen
                     who need to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
                     Think about why the bloggers and media were killed in
                     previous instances. Was it because they revealed
                     operational details, because they acted as informants,
                     because they exposed links with officials or because
                     they somehow sullied the cartel's reputation? In short,
                     what kind of information is damaging to the cartels
                     themselves?
                          o     Once you identify this info - think about if
                     anon can realistically access it and disseminate it so
                     it causes a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any
                     intelligence capacity except for the technical ability
                     by a very small number of its members to infiltrate
                     certain networks and databases and steal information.
                     Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on a
                     network that is connected to the internet (aka no
                     intranet)? Where else could information be found?
                     Government databases? Once we know what kind of
                     information is accessible, we can also know more about
                     the consequences of dissemination.
                          o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel?
                     Sufficient to trace back attacks? If it's not, there
                     risks to be a lot of killings done by people who may not
                     understand the difference between an anon hacker and a
                     blogger.

                     On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                       wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                       -------- Original Message --------

                        Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                           Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                           From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                       Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                             To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                       you've got some of the issues here, but this is going
                       to need a lot more work

                       You need to lay out:

                       a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your
                       trigger section is unclear
                       b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence
                       is, and therefore their vulnerabilities and
                       capabilities
                       c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
                       anything
                       d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to
                       kill anyone who breaches their systems or exposes
                       their connections

                       I also just want to point out that we have reasonable
                       reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very least has
                       some significant levels of sophistication in their
                       online presence, to include the use of cyber
                       currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no
                       reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
                       business online, in a protected fashion.

                       Karen Hooper
                       Latin America Analyst
                       o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                       c: 512.750.7234
                       STRATFOR
                       www.stratfor.com
                       On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                       On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                       Link: themeData

                       Trigger

                       Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy,
                       hackers. Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group
                       famous for...?, lashed out at drug cartels via the
                       Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
                       criminal cartels, including a video released
                       depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a
                       screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent video
                       release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                       criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities
                       of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
                       politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal
                       cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a
                       fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences.
                       The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal
                       cartels and hackers, presents an unprecedented war
                       front for the cartels. The vastly different operations
                       of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
                       Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in
                       handling. i believe that Anonymous has no experience
                       with the cartels. I do not believe for a second that
                       the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                        

                       In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                       mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                       reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped
                       member this should be mentioned right up front.
                       Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit
                       back. Provide enough details so we understand who this
                       guy is and why/how he was abducted. are not met. If
                       Anonymous' claims of possessing revealing information
                       on cartel members and operations are true, cartels
                       will likely respond with violence against individuals
                       revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you mean
                       Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public
                       disclosure of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will
                       force the GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous
                       threat complexity i don't understand what this means.
                       You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
                       effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
                       against Anonymous remains unanswered . However,
                       cartels will continue their threats against any
                       individual using online media WC.... you mean tools?
                       or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers here.
                       against the cartels.

                        

                       The Battle Space

                       Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two
                       separate realities from each other. Anonymous operates
                       solely in sphere of the computer networks. Anonymous
                       does not experience geographical boundaries. All
                       personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in cyber
                       space.  (That is not entirely true. They are physical
                       people tho live in the real world. They have names and
                       addresses - although most of them are likely outside
                       of MX.)  Anonymous' power base consists of their
                       technical capabilities in hacking. Any information
                       connected to the Internet is vulnerable to exploits by
                       hackers. (Identifying the pc's of individual cartel
                       members in the midst of Mexico's population could be
                       quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
                       has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
                       Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings
                       in revenue, but it does not really matter if you don't
                       run operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money
                       via e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on
                       the web than the jihadists.)

                       Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's
                       power base consists of the perceived anonymity that
                       its members believe themselves to have, real or
                       otherwise, by operating through the internet. This
                       gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
                       and everything to practice general dickery. As the
                       popular meme goes, anonymity + audience = troll. Only
                       a fraction of the large web of people who identify
                       themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
                       capability. 

                       The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far
                       has been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement
                       Agencies.

                       The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets
                       in US and Mexican cities. They are run as a business,
                       always looking to maximize profits and expand. But
                       they are bricks and mortar commerce. Yes..... but they
                       use the internet to launder money and issue commands.
                       We know that Sinaloa does that from insight. There is
                       no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a
                       similar capacity.  Their power base is built by large
                       amounts of revenue and escalating brutal violence.
                       Cartels like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing
                       different types of threats. Cartels are always
                       suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence.
                       While battling each other, cartels still face arrests
                       by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid
                       any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
                       have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and
                       online bloggers in order to cover details of their
                       operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for
                       this discussion. You need to focus on the possible
                       vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
                       have no cyber presence.

                        

                       Anonymous' Weapons

                       Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions
                       against criminal cartels has yet to be seen.
                       Anonymous' only ability to combat cartels lay in
                       information operations, mainly disseminating sensitive
                       information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel
                       statements via social media and defaced websites in
                       Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As
                       Anonymous admitted in their video to cartels, they
                       cannot fight with guns.  The significance of a
                       targeted information operations campaign by
                       technically elite individuals can not be overlooked
                       should not be underestimated. Cartels view main stream
                       media outlets and social media blogs as such a threat
                       to their operations, that they have continued to
                       target journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message
                       signed by Los Zetas was placed with a dead female
                       body  more relevantly, on the body of a blogger. The
                       message threatened any users who denounce cartels on
                       blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's
                       not really addressing the subheading

                       As stated earlier, any information connected to the
                       internet risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample
                       reason to suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing
                       information they threaten to release. By releasing
                       identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
                       cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
                       individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate
                       sensitive information is limited by what is available
                       via the Internet. Government computers connected to
                       the Internet should always be considered a possibility
                       of an attack. However, as with the compartmentalized
                       nature of the US governments computer networks,
                       information available to Mexico's intelligence
                       collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you
                       trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

                        

                       Cartel's Defense

                                   A counter response to the video? by the
                       cartels has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous'
                       claims of a kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los
                       Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by
                       hackers so... how has there not been a counter
                       response? also this undermines your statements above
                       about how Anonymous is soley internet based, and
                       underlines the vulnerabilities of associated members.
                       How did they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to
                       that could very well give you some indication to the
                       technical ability of the cartels . As Anonymous exists
                       in abstract reality of the world wide web , the
                       cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely
                       are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has
                       whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in
                       cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good intel
                       indicating that) they are working on disrupting the
                       cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in
                       any region of the world. Personal information
                       including locations is only available if a hacker
                       chooses to divulge it or if the subject of the attack
                       is savvy enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only
                       work for Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of
                       dealing with their online enemy, if they can
                       physically reach out to them. Or start employing
                       hackers of their own under their payroll? Stranger
                       things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                                   Cartels have been known to coerce the
                       services of Mexican citizens with a technical
                       background. Recruiting the help of computer science
                       majors through personal threats has been reported in
                       the past where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since
                       cartels operate in the world of urban violence and
                       drug trafficking, they will likely need the assistance
                       of technical experts to help combat any threat by
                       computer hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside
                       of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is unlikely
                       cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
                       operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement
                       agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
                       experience and resources than cartels, struggle to
                       find hackers through investigations. A) How do you
                       know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they
                       kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not all
                       hackers are equally difficult to track down

                                   In order to compete with an online foe,
                       cartels will likely continue counter tactics they are
                       most familiar with, brute force. Cartels are still
                       capable of their HUMINT operations within Mexico
                       \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?. 
                       Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
                       communities will likely be targeted and interrogated
                       by cartel members.  Narco banners and public display
                       of violence will likely continue to be used to scare
                       online media into submission i'm not really seeing the
                       online media-international hacking group connection
                       here.  The cruel manners in which cartels inflict
                       harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
                       encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
                       cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous
                       will remain to be seen until cartels are able to seek
                       out and capture members of the hacker group.. Or the
                       Narcos could call the collective bluff and simply go
                       on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can
                       inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

             --

             Sean Noonan

             Tactical Analyst

             Office: +1 512-279-9479

             Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

             Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

             www.stratfor.com

         --

         Sean Noonan

         Tactical Analyst

         Office: +1 512-279-9479

         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

         www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-25 02:33:59",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1017647_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1017743,"[Eurasia] GREECE - Referendum will not be on euro, ministers say
","   This seems like pretty empty rhetoric as I don't think anyone was ever
   saying that the referendum would be on whether to stay in the eurozone or
   not - but rather that the consequences of the public rejecting the terms
   of the bailout would be expulsion from the euro.

   Referendum will not be on euro, ministers say
       2 Nov 2011
   http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/49924

   Government officials have given assurances that the question that will
   appear on ballot papers in the planned referendum will be on the loan
   contract and the October 27 decision of the eurozone summit of the leaders
   and not on Greece's membership of the eurozone.
    
   \"Nobody doubts the European prospect of the country,\" deputy government
   spokesman Angelos Tolkas told the main evening news bulletin on private
   Mega TV. \"This government has taken all the measures for Greece to remain
   strong in the euro.\"
    
   The comments came as Prime Minister George Papandreou was meeting with G20
   leaders on November 2.
    
   Earlier French and German officials said that a Greek referendum on the
   latest EU bailout deal must happen as soon as possible - and preferably
   before mid-December - to keep to a minimum the period of economic and
   political uncertainty.
    
   Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, urged Greece to stick to
   the aid plan agreed with the eurozone and IMF on October 26 and to avoid
   the dangerous instability posed by the prospect of a referendum.
    
   \"It would be helpful if clarity is achieved as soon as possible on which
   path Greece wants to take,\" Schaeuble told the Hamburger Abendblatt
   newspaper
    
   Meanwhile, French European Affairs Minister Jean Leonetti said that any
   referendum should be held \"as soon as possible\". Asked if it would better
   for the poll to be completed by mid-December, he said: \"It would be
   important that things are decided that way.\"
    
   German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have
   summoned Papandreou to crisis talks in Cannes, France, at a summit of G20
   world economies. Preliminary indications are that Merkel, Sarkozy and
   other G20 leaders will meet at 6.30pm local time, and that a smaller
   meeting will follow with Papandreou at 9pm. Ta Nea daily is also reporting
   that Papandreou will hold a separate meeting with US President Barack
   Obama.
    
   In a rare televised address on the steps of the Elysee palace in Paris on
   November 1, Sarkozy did not hide his frustration with Papandreoua**s
   decision to call a referendum, while Merkela**s reaction was more
   measured.
    
   \"This announcement took the whole of Europe by surprise,\" Sarkozy said.
   \"The plan ... is the only way to solve Greece's debt problem.\"
    
   Advance warning
    
   German European Commissioner Guenther Oettinger said in a newspaper
   interview on November 2 that Papandreou's actions had \"made the situation
   considerably worse for countries which don't have the highest credit
   rating, and the danger of further setbacks is rising\".
    
   He told the daily Die Welt that the Greek leader should have given
   European leaders advance warning of his referendum plans at their twin
   summits last week. The mass-circulation Bild daily said \"even the
   chancellor was taken by surprise\".
    
   \"My worry is that we will have an unstable situation until the referendum.
   The Greeks have many good grounds to vote for the package. The steps we
   decided on are a good opportunity for their country. But there's a lot of
   frustration and resignation in Greece. If the Greeks actually vote no, the
   consequences are unforeseeable,\" said Oettinger, the EU energy
   commissioner.
    
   However, government spokesman Elias Mossialos denied on November 2 that EU
   leaders were unaware of Papandreoua**s plans to call a referendum.
    
   \"Prime Minister George Papandreou had informed our European partners of
   his intentions, but he had not informed them on the exact date of their
   announcement,a** he told private radio station Vima. a**It lies with the
   Greek prime minister when and in what way a political initiative is
   announced. It's a part of our national sovereignty and our political
   initiatives.
    
   Backing
    
   Papandreou won the backing of his cabinet in the early hours of November 2
   to hold a referendum on latest Brussels bailout deal.
    
   The cabinet unanimously backed a proposal after a marathon seven-hour
   meeting that lasted until 3am on Wednesday morning, according to an
   official announcement issued after the meeting.
    
   Ministers also expressed \"full support\" for the vote of confidence in the
   government called by Papandreou, debate on which begins Wednesday
   afternoon and ends with a roll-call vote at midnight Friday.
    
   Some of his party lawmakers called for him to quit, accusing him of
   endangering Greek euro membership with his shock decision to call a
   popular vote, a move that pummelled the euro and global stocks. But the
   cabinet support at least gives him a stay of execution before a confidence
   vote in parliament on November 4.
    
   \"The referendum will be a clear mandate and a clear message in and outside
   Greece on our European course and participation in the euro,\" Papandreou
   told a cabinet meeting that lasted seven hours, a statement from his
   office said. \"No one will be able to doubt Greece's course within the
   euro.\"
    
   Speaking after the cabinet meeting, government spokesman Mossialos said
   that the technical procedures, the exact date of the referendum and the
   wording of the question to be put to the citizens will be worked out by a
   governmental committee and submitted to the cabinet \"in a relatively short
   time\" so that the referendum may be held \"by the end of the year, if
   possible\".
    
   Speaking to public broadcaster Net, Interior Minister Haris Kastanidis
   said that the referendum date could be moved forward from January if all
   the details of the loan agreement has been completed.
    
   \"There is a possibility that the referendum will take place earlier, in
   December,\" he said.
    
   Kastanidis also lashed out at the banking sector, as well as the
   opposition parties, for their stance. He charged that very few banks \"have
   put their hand in their pocket to confront the crisis\" and that they are
   \"confronting the crisis with state support\".
    
   Commenting on Friday's confidence vote, the interior minister also
   revealed that the government will carry on even if it hangs on by the skin
   of its teeth, with a single vote from an independent MP.
    
   Speaking to his parliamentary group at noon on November 2, main opposition
   New Democracy (ND) leader Antonis Samaras warned that the Pasok government
   was \"desperate and dangerous\" and pledged that an ND government would do
   everything necessary to attain Greece's fiscal targets.
    
   Samaras said this could only be done with a different policy that would
   give hope and prospects to the country. (Athens News, Reuters, AMNA)

   --
   Kristen A. Cooper
   Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: (512) 744-4093 M: (512) 619-9414
","2011-11-02 23:48:48",1,"2012-02-29 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1017743_-eurasia-greece-referendum-will-not-be-on-euro-ministers-say.html","kristen.cooper@stratfor.com","mailto:eurasia@stratfor.com","eurasia@stratfor.com",""
1018845,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Good point. 
   In terrorist terms they are more like grassroots people than AQ core. 
   From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:11:05 -0500
   To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
   Somehow we have to stop referring to 'anonymous' as a monolith.  They are
   a bunch of different people that essentially get together in an
   online-form of a mob to carry out some action. I'm not sure how to do this
   in writing consistently.  But let's start with shit like 'people joining
   Anonymous chatrooms and claiming to be part of the movement' or something
   like that. 

   Comments in green below.  This is coming together nicely. 

   On 10/24/11 11:19 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of
     these in the US?
      What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
     I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
     whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
     because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
     revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of
     understanding of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is
     expendable to cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of
     coercion.

     Anonymous does not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
     cartels.  mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of el
     chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication as a
     tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable intelligence,
     the government will use it against the cartels. That's a physical
     threat, if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify that
     Anonymous can not directly effect physical security. Any impact to the
     cartel in revealing information will be from actions of rival cartels or
     the GoM. They may release information on a given politician being linked
     to the cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the politician will feel
     an impact (Just because Anonymous says there is a link, doesn't make it
     true). It would be up to others to take action.  I think the way you
     have it worded in the above sentence is good.  Follow with a sentence
     explaining the rest of it, because readers will have the same question
     Karen did.  Something like 'Rather, the threat to cartels would come in
     what information anonymous could expose that is useful to their enemies'

     Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online
     activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to conduct
     significant logistics and business online. We don't know how much, but
     we do know they will have some points of operational vulnerability I
     have heard of cartels doing business online, but don't have specific
     examples which could be used in assessing their vulnerability online.

     by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired,
     arrested or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I
     should say, there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out
     politicians as colluding.
     On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

       Karen Hooper
       Latin America Analyst
       o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
       c: 512.750.7234
       STRATFOR
       www.stratfor.com
       On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
       Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
       possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
       Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by people using the
       banner of Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on
       cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
       find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being
       kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and
       Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual posting
       flyers ['critical of cartels'?] in Veracruz as part of the Operation
       Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation. [this is good and
       will be enough information to go with, though you'll need a quick
       explanation of what 'operation paperstorm' is.  Adding something in
       the explaining the flyers will work]

       Link: themeData
       Anonymous, a decentralized hacker collective  famous for distributed
       denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government and corporate websites,
       lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
       denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video depicting a
       masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With
       the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
       the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities
       of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists who collude with
       criminal cartels do they specify whether or not these are all in
       Mexico? Are some of these in the US?
        What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
       group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
       face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
       was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
       their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
       potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
       presents a unique threat towards TCOs [If TCO= transnational criminal
       organization, it's not really unique.  Many such organizations do
       their crimes online, and have been hacked in response--like the
       nigerian princess scams. I think you should just say it's a unique
       threat to DTOs] . We know of cartels lashing out at online bloggers,
       but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches
       from hackers before. 

       What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
            o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat
       to Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to
       the head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using
       publication as a tool to force government action. If you reveal
       actionable intelligence, the government will use it against the
       cartels. That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
            o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
       media
            o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out
       at cartels

       While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
       threat, if it had access to certain types of information:

               -The threat is in the information they can expose that may be
   of use to any cartel enemies.  That could be to the government or other
   cartels or even local citizens (the last one may be a stretch, but i could
   imagine someone discrediting cartel members in the eyes of the public).

            o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims tocut possess
       identifiable information on cartel members 
            o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
       cartels [cut this part here, and make the point at the end of this
       section/paragraph]
            o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
       identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in
       the realm of possibilities for
                   Anonymous
                   o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
       illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are
       known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't
       know how much, but we do know they will have some points of
       operational vulnerability

      -They claim to have information on those that collude with cartels 
   (use the stuff you have above].  Releasing such information could hurt
   cartels' support networks, but most of these people are also easily
   replaceable. 
               -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents have
   access to, and doubt they have such information that provides any sort of
   existential threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 

       Most Anonymous hackers are likely far removed from the ultra-violent
       world of drug trafficking in Mexico, but it's quite possible that some
       of its members in this campaign are in Mexico and opposed to the
       violence [or something like that.  my limited understanding is there
       are still activist crusader-types in Mexico, yeah?  it seems very
       possible those with a bit of time or computer skills could have joined
       up with anonymous] . As a result, their understanding of cartel
       activities may be limited. Anonymous members in other countries may
       act with confidence when sitting in front of a computer, but this may
       blind them to any possible retribution. They may not even know the
       impact of any online assault of cartels.  [the part below and above is
       written rather normatively.  We need to take that out.  just state the
       facts]
            o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists will
       cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these individuals are
       forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are often
       victims of extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the
       identity of these individuals will not have a significant impact on
       cartel                   operations. Politicans have been accused of
       working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before, however
       there has yet to be any consequences from this. by \"no consequences\"
       what exactly do you mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and
       that happens all the time.
            o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels are
       willing to go protect their operations.
               o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
               o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
       community before, coercing computer science majors into working for
       them.
               o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
       discovering hackers within Mexico.
       need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply publishing
       tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the same camp as
       the bloggers  [yes, i think it needs to be clear that their damage
       will be similar to what bloggers or wikileaks can do--limited.  But
       maybe more a danger to themselves, since they are no longer
       challenging governments, but criminal organizations]

        

       On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

         Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but there
         are several issues to address and fix here.

         These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
         discussion:

              o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but
         we can't gloss over that fact
              o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
         between stealing bank records from government computers and
         overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
              o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
         information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
         kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
         talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
         politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
         going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
         killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
         operational details, because they acted as informants, because they
         exposed links with officials or because they somehow sullied the
         cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of information is damaging
         to the cartels themselves?
              o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
         realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure of
         damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for the
         technical ability by a very small number of its members to
         infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal information. Now
         what kind of information would a cartel keep on a network that is
         connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
         information be found? Government databases? Once we know what kind
         of information is accessible, we can also know more about the
         consequences of dissemination.
              o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
         back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings done
         by people who may not understand the difference between an anon
         hacker and a blogger.

         On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

           wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

           -------- Original Message --------

            Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
               Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
               From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
           Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                 To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

           you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a
           lot more work

           You need to lay out:

           a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section
           is unclear
           b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
           therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
           c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
           d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone
           who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

           I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
           insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant levels
           of sophistication in their online presence, to include the use of
           cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no reason
           to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
           protected fashion.

           Karen Hooper
           Latin America Analyst
           o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
           c: 512.750.7234
           STRATFOR
           www.stratfor.com
           On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

           On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

           Link: themeData

           Trigger

           Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
           Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed
           out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
           Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released
           depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a screen?
           exactly when?.  With the most recent video release, Anonymous
           makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels. Threats such as
           releasing identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
           politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels.
           The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped
           member otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
           between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
           unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly different
           operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
           Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
           believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
           not believe for a second that the cartels have no experience with
           hackers.

            

           In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as
           a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of
           releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up
           front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit
           back. Provide enough details so we understand who this guy is and
           why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of
           possessing revealing information on cartel members and operations
           are true, cartels will likely respond with violence against
           individuals revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you mean
           Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public disclosure of
           GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take
           action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand
           what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
           effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against Anonymous
           remains unanswered . However, cartels will continue their threats
           against any individual using online media WC.... you mean tools?
           or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers here. against the
           cartels.

            

           The Battle Space

           Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
           realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere of
           the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience geographical
           boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in
           cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They are physical people
           tho live in the real world. They have names and addresses -
           although most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power
           base consists of their technical capabilities in hacking. Any
           information connected to the Internet is vulnerable to exploits by
           hackers. (Identifying the pc's of individual cartel members in the
           midst of Mexico's population could be quite difficult.  Remember
           that most of what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if
           you are Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in
           revenue, but it does not really matter if you don't run operations
           on the web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are
           also far less dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

           Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power base
           consists of the perceived anonymity that its members believe
           themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating through the
           internet. This gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
           and everything to practice general dickery. As the popular meme
           goes, anonymity + audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large
           web of people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort
           of serious IT capability. 

           The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been
           from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

           The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
           Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
           maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
           commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money and
           issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight. There
           is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar
           capacity.  Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue
           and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
           experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels are
           always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence. While
           battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law Enforcement
           Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in the flow of
           drugs and money, cartels have targeted media outlets. Murdering
           journalists and online bloggers in order to cover details of their
           operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for this
           discussion. You need to focus on the possible vulnerabilities of
           the cartels. Don't just assume they have no cyber presence.

            

           Anonymous' Weapons

           Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
           criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
           combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly disseminating
           sensitive information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel
           statements via social media and defaced websites in Mexico you
           mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their
           video to cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance
           of a targeted information operations campaign by technically elite
           individuals can not be overlooked should not be underestimated.
           Cartels view main stream media outlets and social media blogs as
           such a threat to their operations, that they have continued to
           target journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by
           Los Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on
           the body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
           denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive here,
           and it's not really addressing the subheading

           As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet risks
           disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest
           Anonymous is capable of possessing information they threaten to
           release. By releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
           Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
           individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
           information is limited by what is available via the Internet.
           Government computers connected to the Internet should always be
           considered a possibility of an attack. However, as with the
           compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer networks,
           information available to Mexico's intelligence collection may not
           be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This isn't
           clear at all

            

           Cartel's Defense

                       A counter response to the video? by the cartels has
           yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped
           member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the
           threat posed by hackers so... how has there not been a counter
           response? also this undermines your statements above about how
           Anonymous is soley internet based, and underlines the
           vulnerabilities of associated members. How did they find teh
           Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well give you some
           indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As Anonymous
           exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the cartels
           will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed for them
           Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies dedicated to
           fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good
           intel indicating that) they are working on disrupting the
           cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in any region
           of the world. Personal information including locations is only
           available if a hacker chooses to divulge it or if the subject of
           the attack is savvy enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only
           work for Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
           online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
           employing hackers of their own under their payroll? Stranger
           things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                       Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
           Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the help
           of computer science majors through personal threats has been
           reported in the past where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since
           cartels operate in the world of urban violence and drug
           trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of technical
           experts to help combat any threat by computer hackers.  While
           identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is
           unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers operating
           outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies such as the FBi,
           with far more technical experience and resources than cartels,
           struggle to find hackers through investigations. A) How do you
           know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they kidnapped???)
           B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are equally difficult
           to track down

                       In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
           likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with, brute
           force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT operations within
           Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?. 
           Individuals with alleged connections to hacker communities will
           likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco
           banners and public display of violence will likely continue to be
           used to scare online media into submission i'm not really seeing
           the online media-international hacking group connection here.  The
           cruel manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer
           hackers have unlikely encountered before in their life. Whether
           the fear of cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous
           will remain to be seen until cartels are able to seek out and
           capture members of the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the
           collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience
           that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:33:26",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1018845_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1022457,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored cyber
   warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing that, since you
   can conduct a cyber attack without associating with a hacker group and
   still deny / cover actions on behalf of the State. An individual attacking
   US computer assets from China, may be working by himself or on behalf of
   the Chinese government, but unless the US has other intel on the Chinese
   government's cyber warfare activities in order to corroborate there is
   little capability to distinguish.

   It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network operations do
   not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets from SIGINT would not
   directly help you track an individual responsible for hacking State run
   servers. In the past, I have turned to SIGINT organizations for
   collections on computer related material, but this was due to the US being
   behind in cyber warfare, and not knowing where to assign responsibility.
   However, this has changed dramatically in the last couple of years.

   Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As an extreme
   scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go to a Starbucks with
   free public wifi, and never attribute the online activity to something
   revealing (accessing personal email accounts, tweeting, entering personal
   information to the laptop, etc..), and begin hacking government email
   accounts then never use the laptop again. Unless LEA could get an accurate
   description of my appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible security
   cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

   Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to these
   enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied to specific
   computer-related activities because of the difficulty in identifying
   individuals.

   I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown, would be
   the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a common participant in
   \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a State? Anonymous has denounced
   state governments before, if that State agent organizes an attack amongst
   his IRC / Twitter buddies, what signs could a LEA look for to distinguish?

   On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a bit)

     1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything actually
     harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't, but i'm very
     doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first real case where they
     could do some minor damage--to individual people, not not to an
     organization or anything that would come as a serious or strategic
     threat. 

     2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is actually pretty
     good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as a cover, but that would be
     pretty easy to bungle, and could probably still be attributed if
     important enough to those agencies.  The recent attack on Sony actually
     brings this issue up- Whoever is calling themselves anonymous denies
     they did it.  And keep in mind how much they have claimed an publicized
     attacks in the past, even before they were carried out.  The attack on
     the Playstation Network was more sophisticated than anonymous' usual
     work (though potentially coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that
     distracted Sony's IT security).  But whoever did it, again, no real
     damage came of it.  Congress is holding hearings over data security, but
     this is no different than the OC groups stealing your credit card
     information.  LE will go after them, have some success, but the threat
     is not that large. 
     On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

       Link: themeData

       I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to have a
       broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no nothing, or
       almost nothing about what this group is and the threat it poses.
       Reviewing their list of attacks
       (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most of the
       cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood of the internet
       . The interesting thing when it comes to their interactions with the
       cartels is the dubious role they play: at the same time they can be
       fighting crime by revealing cartel members/supporters, but they can
       also put lives in risk.

       However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by Anonymous.
       The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can conduct a cyber
       attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
       (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

       If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government websites,
       or if I am just a internet user, I would like to know more about these
       guys. Who they are? What are they interested in? How they operate? Who
       they have targeted so far? How can I defend myself from them? In what
       countries are they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use
       them to achieve any particular goal?

       On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

         nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else can
         build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they pose to
         innocent people caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing
         on journalists or taxi drivers they show little understanding of the
         situation.  This has long term implications in not just Mexico. 
         They don't consider the consequences of their actions and they act
         without understanding the environment.  It was the same when they
         released information on the Sony Playstation network to protest
         Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

         On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

           Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
           possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
           Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by Anonymous,
           threatens revealing personal information on cartels as well as
           states a member had been kidnapped. I could not find any sources
           outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being kidnapped.
           According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous
           Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual posting flyers in
           Veracruz as part of the Operation Paperstorm protest, although
           that is speculation.

           Link: themeData
           Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
           denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed
           out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
           Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked
           individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the
           most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
           the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing
           identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists
           who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los
           Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
           consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
           was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
           their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
           potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and
           hackers, presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels
           lashing out at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting
           on cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

           What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
           threat to Mexican cartels.
                o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
           media
                o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash
           out at cartels

           While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
           threat
                o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
           identifiable information on cartel members
                o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire
           on cartels
                o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
           communications, identifiable information on cartels members have
           to be considered in the realm of possibilities for
                       Anonymous
                       o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
           illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

           Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
           ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result,
           their understanding of cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous
           may act with confidence when sitting in front of a computer, but
           this may blind them to any possible retribution. They may not even
           know the impact of any online assault of cartels.
                o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists
           will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these
           individuals are forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi
           drivers are often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
           halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals will not
           have a significant impact on cartel                   operations.
           Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
           Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any
           consequences from this.
                o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels
           are willing to go protect their operations.
                   o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                   o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
           community before, coercing computer science majors into working
           for them.
                   o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
           discovering hackers within Mexico.

            

           On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

             Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but
             there are several issues to address and fix here.

             These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
             discussion:

                  o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine
             but we can't gloss over that fact
                  o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
             between stealing bank records from government computers and
             overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                  o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
             information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
             kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
             talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
             politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
             going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
             killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
             operational details, because they acted as informants, because
             they exposed links with officials or because they somehow
             sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
             information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                  o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
             realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a
             measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity
             except for the technical ability by a very small number of its
             members to infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal
             information. Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on
             a network that is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)?
             Where else could information be found? Government databases?
             Once we know what kind of information is accessible, we can also
             know more about the consequences of dissemination.
                  o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to
             trace back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of
             killings done by people who may not understand the difference
             between an anon hacker and a blogger.

             On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

               wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

               -------- Original Message --------

                Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                   Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                   From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
               Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                     To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

               you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need
               a lot more work

               You need to lay out:

               a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger
               section is unclear
               b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
               therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
               c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
               anything
               d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill
               anyone who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

               I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
               insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant
               levels of sophistication in their online presence, to include
               the use of cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
               is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
               business online, in a protected fashion.

               Karen Hooper
               Latin America Analyst
               o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
               c: 512.750.7234
               STRATFOR
               www.stratfor.com
               On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

               On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

               Link: themeData

               Trigger

               Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
               Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?,
               lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
               denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video
               released depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a
               screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent video release,
               Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels.
               Threats such as releasing identities of Mexican? American?
               taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists who collude
               with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas
               release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences.
               The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels
               and hackers, presents an unprecedented war front for the
               cartels. The vastly different operations of Anonymous and Los
               Zetas leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have
               little experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no
               experience with the cartels. I do not believe for a second
               that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                

               In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
               mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
               their demands of releasing a kidnapped member this should be
               mentioned right up front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is
               threatening to hit back. Provide enough details so we
               understand who this guy is and why/how he was abducted. are
               not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing revealing
               information on cartel members and operations are true, cartels
               will likely respond with violence against individuals revealed
               as opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous members?.
               It also is likely that public disclosure of GOM officials who
               collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving
               the Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this
               means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
               effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against
               Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will continue
               their threats against any individual using online media WC....
               you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers
               here. against the cartels.

                

               The Battle Space

               Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
               realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere
               of the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience
               geographical boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
               exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They
               are physical people tho live in the real world. They have
               names and addresses - although most of them are likely outside
               of MX.)  Anonymous' power base consists of their technical
               capabilities in hacking. Any information connected to the
               Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying
               the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's
               population could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of
               what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
               Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in
               revenue, but it does not really matter if you don't run
               operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money via
               e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on the web than
               the jihadists.)

               Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power
               base consists of the perceived anonymity that its members
               believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating
               through the internet. This gives an opening for people
               disgruntled by anything and everything to practice general
               dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity + audience =
               troll. Only a fraction of the large web of people who identify
               themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
               capability. 

               The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has
               been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

               The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US
               and Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking
               to maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
               commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
               and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from
               insight. There is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't
               have a similar capacity.  Their power base is built by large
               amounts of revenue and escalating brutal violence. Cartels
               like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing different types of
               threats. Cartels are always suffering at the hands of cartel
               on cartel violence. While battling each other, cartels still
               face arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to
               avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
               have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
               bloggers in order to cover details of their operations. ok...
               but that's kind of a red herrng for this discussion. You need
               to focus on the possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't
               just assume they have no cyber presence.

                

               Anonymous' Weapons

               Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
               criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability
               to combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly
               disseminating sensitive information on cartels and propagating
               anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced websites
               in Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous
               admitted in their video to cartels, they cannot fight with
               guns.  The significance of a targeted information operations
               campaign by technically elite individuals can not be
               overlooked should not be underestimated. Cartels view main
               stream media outlets and social media blogs as such a threat
               to their operations, that they have continued to target
               journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los
               Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on
               the body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
               denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive
               here, and it's not really addressing the subheading

               As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet
               risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to
               suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing information they
               threaten to release. By releasing identities of individuals
               cooperating with Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life
               of those individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate
               sensitive information is limited by what is available via the
               Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
               should always be considered a possibility of an attack.
               However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the US
               governments computer networks, information available to
               Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy to acquire. 
               what are you trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

                

               Cartel's Defense

                           A counter response to the video? by the cartels
               has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a
               kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun
               addressing the threat posed by hackers so... how has there not
               been a counter response? also this undermines your statements
               above about how Anonymous is soley internet based, and
               underlines the vulnerabilities of associated members. How did
               they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that could very
               well give you some indication to the technical ability of the
               cartels . As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
               wide web , the cartels will face a number of challenges which
               rarely are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has
               whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You
               can assume (and we have good intel indicating that) they are
               working on disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening
               cartels, can operate in any region of the world. Personal
               information including locations is only available if a hacker
               chooses to divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy
               enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only work for
               Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
               online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or
               start employing hackers of their own under their payroll?
               Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                           Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
               Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the
               help of computer science majors through personal threats has
               been reported in the past where? What cartels? reported
               where?.  Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence
               and drug trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of
               technical experts to help combat any threat by computer
               hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been
               demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable of
               identifying any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
               enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
               experience and resources than cartels, struggle to find
               hackers through investigations. A) How do you know they are
               not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm
               goign to assume that not all hackers are equally difficult to
               track down

                           In order to compete with an online foe, cartels
               will likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar
               with, brute force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT
               operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they
               wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
               communities will likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel
               members.  Narco banners and public display of violence will
               likely continue to be used to scare online media into
               submission i'm not really seeing the online
               media-international hacking group connection here.  The cruel
               manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer
               hackers have unlikely encountered before in their life.
               Whether the fear of cartel violence softens the confidence of
               Anonymous will remain to be seen until cartels are able to
               seek out and capture members of the hacker group.. Or the
               Narcos could call the collective bluff and simply go on and
               shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:38:17",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1022457_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1025066,"RE: Wikileaks
","This is also still stuff from PFC Bradley Manning. There were allegations
early on that he had downloaded something like 260,000 state department
cables. 

This is also probably secret stuff at the most and will not jeopardize any
intelligence sources and methods. But there could be political backlash. 


-----Original Message-----
From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
On Behalf Of Reva Bhalla
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 2:30 PM
To: Analyst List
Cc: friedman@att.blackberry.net; Analyst List
Subject: Re: Wikileaks

Yes, will be ready to go through it with Emre. This is the last thing  
they need after getting bmd. Depending on how bad this gets it could  
create problems for akp in election yr.




Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 25, 2010, at 12:23 PM, Emre Dogru <emre.dogru@stratfor.com>  
wrote:

> I will cover mesa countries in coordination with the rest of mesa  
> team.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Nov 25, 2010, at 20:00, \"George Friedman\" <friedman@att.blackberry.net 
> > wrote:
>
>> We need to be ready to go through this stuff and identify things.  
>> Unlike the military stuff this seems important.
>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
","2010-11-26 00:27:43",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1025066_re-wikileaks-.html","scott.stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com,friedman@att.blackberry.net",""
1025329,"INSIGHT - AUSTRALIA/CHINA - Resources Tax - CN65
","   SOURCE: CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator.  Source is 
   well-connected politically, militarily and economically.  He has become a
   private businessman helping foreign companies with M&As
   PUBLICATION: Yes but with no attribution
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
   DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

   Xstrata has announced that it has cancelled all exploration in
   Queensland's NW resources province.  This is a huge area of Queensland
   centred around Mt Isa.  
   By way of explanation, Xstrata bought MIM (Mt Isa Mines) about a decade
   ago.  MIM opened up the NW minerals province in the 1920s, and the Mt Isa
   mine is still one of the world's largest producers of copper, lead, silver
   and zinc.  The province has also spawned other mines such as Mary Kathleen
   (Australia's first uranium mine), Ernest Henry (copper gold mine), George
   Fisher (lead, zinc, silver), Lady Annie (copper) and Century (the world's
   second largest zinc mine).
   This is a major statement of no confidence, and also a hit to overall
   revenue. The point to note is that if the companies do not explore on
   their exploration tenements, they forfeit them.  This leaves the door open
   for the Chinese to come in and snap them up, as I predicted.

   In another note on the topic in response to whether or not all of the
   backlash against Rudd for the resources task is really bluster and whether
   or not the mining companies can actually do anything about it more than
   just gripe:

   On Rudd and the RSPT, it is very complex.  Companies like Fortescue and
   Xstrata are serious about cancelling projects and exploration.  There is a
   difference, too, between the coal miners and the metalliferous miners.
    Coal exploration has a much lower risk profile in Australia because of
   the uniformity of the coal measure in Eastern Australia.  That is not the
   case with iron ore and other metals which are the result of volcanic,
   rather than sedimentary processes.  Coal miners will continue to invest
   but metalliferous miners will not. This is not a bluff.  These guys are
   fair dinkum.
   As to the application of the tax, Rudd is not saying that the proceeds of
   the RSPT will go to pensions.  In fact the proceeds go to consolidated
   revenue and are therefore unhypothecated.
   The Rudd line is that part of the money raised from the RSPT will go to
   fund reductions in company tax, which will then be taken from the
   companies in an increased in the company contribution to superannuation.
    Because it funds superannuation, there is not benefit to current
   pensioners.
   Bu the problem is that the RSPT has wiped billions of dollars from the
   value of the stock market, and therefore from the value of existing
   pension funds.  The increase in the company contribution rate to super
   will not, in the short to medium term, offset the losses from the value of
   share portfolios.
   Overall public sentiment is probably against the tax 55% to 45%.  If I can
   find the latest Morgan Poll figures, I shall send them to you.
   Rudd's popularity has slumped.  There has been a bounce for the Coalition.
    Some polls put the Coalition in front of a 2PP (two party preferred)
   basis, others have Labor ahead by 0.5% on a 2PP basis.  What I do know is
   that the Coalition needs more than 3% lead on a 2PP basis at the moment to
   win government, because the Australian electorate always swings to the
   government in the second half of an election campaign.
","2010-05-27 16:59:30",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1025329_insight-australia-china-resources-tax-cn65-.html","colibasanu@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1025951,"[alpha] ARGENTINA-CHINA RELATIONS - MEETING/SEMINAR AT
	ARGENTINE/THINK TANK
","   This evening I attended a meeting at the Argentine Council on Foreign
   Relations (CARI). The meeting was about Argentina-China relations. CARI is
   an Argentine think tank that was created by Argentine diplomats, scholars,
   private businesses to debate and study ArgentinaA's international
   relations.

   Today, it was CARIA's China group studies headed by a prominent Argentine
   ambassador, especially during Nestor KirchenerA's presidency that promoted
   a debate about Argentina-China relations.  I was really surprised with
   this meeting, because I thought the debate about how to deal with China
   was going to be similar to some IA've witnessed in Brazil where some
   diplomats, scholars, think tanks etca*| have started to re-think BrazilA's
   relations with China as the import of Chinese products have started to
   increase considerably.  This is not what I saw this evening at CARI. Most
   of the people at this meeting today are current Argentine diplomats and
   they were pretty much saying about how China is card that they can play
   against the US and how Argentina needs to start strengthening relations
   with China. They said that every time a high rank Chinese military officer
   comes to Argentina, the US embassy goes ballistic and the Argentine govt,
   of course, loves it. They said that Argentina needs to cooperate with
   China in the areas of biotechnology, bio-fuels, telecommunications, and
   wind power. They also said that China in terms of defense cooperation has
   categorized South America into 3 groups. One group is the one that they
   have signed most defense cooperation agreements with, which are: Brazil,
   Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay. A 2nd group is the one that they sell
   weapons: Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia. 3rd one is the one that they have
   more navy exchanges, which are the ones on the Pacific Coast: Peru, Chile,
   Ecuador, and Colombia. One of CARIA's member who is an Argentine diplomat
   said that one of the problems with China is that a lot of Latin American
   military officers are being trained in China, but Chinese military
   officers do not come to Latin America to spend some time and have some
   exchange with Latin American military officers. My feeling is that it
   seems that Argentina perceives China in a more positive way than Brazil. I
   heard several times during the meeting how China was important for
   Argentina to diversify its trade partner and also use it as a card against
   the US. 

   Paulo Gregoire
   Latin America Monitor
   STRATFOR
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-02 01:01:04",1,"2012-02-29 22:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1025951_-alpha-argentina-china-relations-meeting-seminar-at.html","paulo.gregoire@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1026833,"Re: G3/B3* - GREECE - Papa speech: rejects snap elections,
	doesn't resign	and still defends referendum
","   But the original point is that he maintains the referendum was a good
   idea... for him. No contest on it being irrelevant at this point.

   Sent from my iPhone
   On Nov 4, 2011, at 19:01, Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   wrote:

     I don't think the referendum idea came from extraneous forces but was a
     misguided attempt to discharge responsibility. As you said, the
     pressures on P are EU and domestic, the referendum came from neither.
     Therefore, id there is one thing he knows he will do it's NOT having a
     referendum.

     Sent from my iPhone
     On Nov 4, 2011, at 18:56, \"George Friedman\"
     <friedman@att.blackberry.net> wrote:

       He doesn't know what he will do. He is riding the tiger caught between
       the eu leadership and the public. Pay no attention to what he wants
       and pay attention to the forces on him. We've seen him whirling like a
       dervish for days.

       Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
       Sender: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
       Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 18:43:56 -0500 (CDT)
       To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
       ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
       Subject: Re: G3/B3* - GREECE - Papa speech: rejects snap elections,
       doesn't resign and still defends referendum
       If Peter meant that Papa still thinks the referendum was the best idea
       I agree with him. If he means papa is still thinking of doing it in
       the future I'm with Kristen.
       Sent from my iPhone
       On Nov 4, 2011, at 17:58, Kristen Cooper <kristen.cooper@stratfor.com>
       wrote:

         I don't think that is what he said. He spent most the time
         explaining why he called it in the first place but not still having
         it.

         Kristen Cooper
         512.619.9414
         On Nov 4, 2011, at 18:53, Peter Zeihan <zeihan@stratfor.com> wrote:

           I mean papa is still saying that's his plan

           On Nov 4, 2011, at 5:41 PM, Kristen Cooper
           <kristen.cooper@stratfor.com> wrote:

             I really don't think the referendum is still on. He gave that up
             awhile ago. There is NO way he would win a confidence vote if
             people thought he was still going to call a referendum
             On Nov 4, 2011, at 6:23 PM, Peter Zeihan wrote:

               Still on the referendum
               Awesome
               On Nov 4, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Marc Lanthemann
               <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com> wrote:

                 nothing exciting or historic

                 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8846201/Debt-crisis-live.html

                 21.58 Papandreou closes his speech, rejecting talk of snap
                 elections:

                 We need to be level-headed. We are managing a crisis. We
                 need to strengthen democratic institutions or we will wound
                 democracy. We must be organised and Greece must be governed
                 without interuption. We require level-headedness, not
                 frenzy. Political parties which are going to be
                 collaborating cannot be a government on a status quo that is
                 dying.

                 What i want is to operate for today and tomorrow but not for
                 yesterday. Let's go for the citizens of Greece, for a
                 country that can be proud and dignified. I want to remind
                 foreign leaders that they should have belief in the Greek
                 people. This country is made of hard stuff and the country
                 does what it is meant to do.

                 I ask for a vote of confidence so our country has a
                 government to take necessary steps of security over the next
                 few months. The country supercedes all of us. United, we can
                 go forward.

                 21.43 More humble talk from Mr Papandreou:
                 I did not see politics as profession. I can contribute to
                 general good. When I am under criticism i want to send a
                 clear message, I hope my actions can bring about a different
                 culture in political life of the country and media and
                 citizens.

                 21.41 He opens the door for a coalition government to be
                 formed.

                 21.40 Mr Papandreou insists he is not \"clinging to power\".
                 He says he is not interested in that. The floor claps.

                 21.37 More from Mr Papandreou:

                 I broke a taboo with the referendum [...] Going against the
                 norm was for the benefit of Greece. We do have differences,
                 but we also see priorities of countries and these can best
                 be served with collaborations.
                 A transitional government would mean catastrophe. This
                 should not happen. Snap elections would mean the bail-out
                 would be up in the air.

                 21.35 He says early elections would be a \"catastrophe\".

                 21.29 Mr Papandreou continues:
                 It is in the interest of the Greek nation, this bailout. I
                 am curious how all oppositions oppose this. What did they
                 fear? Rejection by greek people of bailout?
                 [The referendum] was a democratic decision which shook the
                 markets.
                 But we the Greek nation exists which finally must decide.
                 Many on the right and on the left said we were bothering our
                 partners, and therefore there was hypocracy abound.
                 [So] yes financial markets exist, but first of all people
                 exist.

                 21.17 Mr Papandreou asks Parliament for greater
                 collaboration and cooperation. He says:
                 The bailout allows us to write-off a large part of our debt
                 in the next few months [it] permits us to give the energy to
                 build a Greece of growth.

                 Greek people, There is no problem with your deposits in the
                 banks because of the bailout. They are even more guaranteed
                 with us in the eurozone.

                 [...] This bailout is tremendous opportunity to rebuild
                 country on new foundations.

                 Papandreou steps up to address the Greek parliament on
                 Fridsy (Photo: AP)

                 21.12 There are shades of the British Commons as George
                 Papandreou finally takes the mic. He blames the previous
                 government for multiplying the debt and the a**tragic
                 mistakesa** that have been made. He adds:
                 We are living through a new trial, and some of us wish to
                 forget what has happened in the past.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-05 01:03:38",1,"2012-02-29 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1026833_re-g3-b3-greece-papa-speech-rejects-snap-elections-doesn-t.html","marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1029168,"wikileaks tasking
","   I'd like every AOR to look at the leaks from their area.  Look for two
   things.  First, is there anything significantly embarrassing to anyone. 
   Second, is there any place where Stratfor is shown to be compeltely off
   base?
   --

   George Friedman

   Founder and CEO

   Stratfor

   700 Lavaca Street

   Suite 900

   Austin, Texas 78701

   Phone  512-744-4319

   Fax  512-744-4334
","2010-11-28 20:19:44",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1029168_wikileaks-tasking-.html","gfriedman@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1029237,"wikileaks mirrored
","   In case the wikileaks.org site goes down again, I've mirrored it here:

    

   https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/

    

    

    

   Kevin Stech

   Research Director | STRATFOR

   kevin.stech@stratfor.com

   +1 (512) 744-4086

    
","2010-11-28 23:07:51",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1029237_wikileaks-mirrored-.html","","","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1030004,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1030004_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1031554,"Re: [CT] Anonymous 101: Introduction to the Lulz
","   So far extremely underwhelming, as expected. 

   10 points to whoever came up with this phrase \"ultra-coordinated
   motherfuckery\" 

   Unfortunately it is applied to people who are completely uncoordinated and
   couldn't fuck anything.  You can be sure I will find a better use for this
   phrase in the future.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"CT AOR\" <ct@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2011 2:48:49 PM
   Subject: [CT] Anonymous 101: Introduction to the Lulz

   pretty good cultural overview of anon but useless in terms of figuring out
   \"tactical\" details.

   On 11/8/11 1:30 PM, Melissa Taylor wrote:

 Haven't read it, but looks very interesting.  This is Part I.

 Recommend reading at link for pics.


 Anonymous 101: Introduction to the Lulz

 http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/11/anonymous-101/all/1

 November 8, 2011  |
 5:30 am

 (Any decent coverage of Anonymous is going to verge on some NSFW material at points. There will be questionable language and strange imagery.)

 Last week the net and the media were ablaze with the news that Anonymous might be taking on the Zeta drug cartel in Mexico, a story that has morphed into wider drug corruption story, and led to one American law enforcement official in North Carolina being named as a gang conspirator.

 Also this year, anons released documents on, or d0xed, several police organization and one prominent police vendor in retaliation for heavy-handed law enforcement reactions to occupations associated with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Theya**ve fought with child pornographers, hacked Sony repeatedly, and even tried to releasing compromising pictures to blackmail Bay Area Rapid Transit spokesman Linton Johnson into resigning. (Johnson claimed to have authored and then defended BARTa**s controversial decision to shut off mobile phone service in BART stations to pre-empt an anti-police brutality protest.)

 Theya**ve created law enforcement excitement thata**s verged on panic, given net and media pundits hyperbolic logorrhea about a**cyber terrorisma** and a**cyber freedoma**, and happily skipped between damn funny, deeply disturbing, and self-aggrandizing, depending on the mood of the hive mind at the moment.

 But what is Anonymous?

 In this in-depth series a**Anonymous: Beyond the Mask,a** wea**re going to do our best to answer that.

 NYU Professor and Anonymous researcher Biella Coleman compares Anonymous to the trickster god archetype.

 a**The trickster does exist across America, across Europe, really across the world and it is not in myth but in embodied in group and living practice: in that of the prankster, hacker, the phreaker, the troller (all of whom, have their own unique elements of course, but so does each trickster),a** she wrote in Social Text.

 The trickster isna**t the good guy or the bad guy, ita**s the character that exposes contradictions, initiates change and moves the plot forward. One minute, the loving and heroic trickster is saving civilization. A few minutes later the same trickster is cruel, kicking your ass and eating babies as a snack.

 The conversation about Anonymous points to this trickster nature, veering between praise and fear, with the media at a loss for even how to describe them.

 Wea**ve tried hacker group, notorious hacker group, hacktivists, the Internet Hate Machine, pimply-faced, basement-dwelling teenagers, an activist organization, a movement, a collective, a vigilante group, online terrorists, and any number of other fantastical and colorful terms. None of them have ever really fit. Anonymous has constantly forced us to reach for the thesaurus a** revealing that as a whole, we in the media have no idea what Anonymous really is or what it means.

 It wasna**t until I downloaded and listened to Lulz: A corruption of LOLa**s second album, Corruption, that I grasped what Anonymous really is.

 Ita**s a culture.

 It takes cultures to have albums, idioms, and iconography, and I was swimming in these and more. Anonymous is a nascent and small culture, but one with its own aesthetics and values, art and literature, social norms and ways of production, and even its own dialectic language.

 It is no wonder we in the media and the wider culture are often confused. Any study of Anonymous must be anthropological, taking into account the way people exist in different societies. The media has just been looking for an organization with a leader who could explain why Anonymous seems to do weird things. Not only that, but Anonymous seems to be built around doing weird things, and even has a term for it: the lulz.

 The lulz (a corruption of LOL, online shorthand for laugh out loud) is the most important and abstract thing to understand about Anonymous, and perhaps the internet itself. The lulz is laughing instead of screaming. Ita**s a laughter of embarrassment and separation. Ita**s schadenfreude. Ita**s not the anesthetic humor that makes days go by easier, ita**s humor that heightens contradictions. The lulz is laughter with pain in it. It forces you to consider injustice and hypocrisy, whichever side of it you are on in that moment.

 In the culture of Anonymous, the lulz is the reason for doing. Anonymous wasna**t made for easy times; the trickster sleeps when all is well.
 Inevitablity

 Cultures dona**t emerge from vacuums, and Anonymous is no exception. The birthplace of Anonymous is a website called 4chan founded in 2003, that developed an a**anything goesa** random section known as the /b/ board. 4chan itself comes from Japanese language predecessor called 2chan, founded in 2001. Before that, the lulz and hacker pranking was alive and well in old-school IRC chat rooms, EFnet, and the 1990s hacker scene.

 But if youa**re going back that far, add as influences Mondo 2000, and publications like RE/Search, and a billion shitty zines that were dead by 1996. But those all came from something, too.

 Hacker culture, and almost all of computer culture back in the day is shot through with the Discordian edge of 1960/1970s counter-culture and Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Sheaa**s Illuminatus. So from there ita**s the yippies, Andy Kaufmann, and the Situationists we need to first comprehend, or do we head back to early 20th century absurdists of Dada? Or maybe we venture all the way to that olde booke of epic trolling lulze, Tristram Shandy?

 Wea**re all the way to 1759 now.

 Perhaps this means the 1960s Discordians are right, and therea**s a Ha Ha Only Serious giggle that is cosmic in nature. That there is a part of reality, a force of physics, that is actually a Fundamental Sense of Humor. But the gravity we deal with can only be explained to an even larger amount of Dark Humor, woven into the fabric of the universe.

 The point is Anonymous, despite the false shock of contemporary news reporting, isna**t sui generis. Ita**s not a surprise, and it didna**t spring fully formed from the forehead of Ceiling Cat.

 In this place and time, with the exhaustion of political discourse, the overwhelming pressures of modern life, and rise of the internet, the stochastic network organism of Anonymous was inevitable.

 I will confess up front that I love Anonymous, but not because I think theya**re the heroes.

 Like Alan Moorea**s character V who inspired Anonymous to adopt the Guy Fawkes mask as an icon and fashion item, youa**re never quite sure if Anonymous is the hero or antihero. The trickster is attracted to change and the need for change, and thata**s where Anonymous goes. But they are not your personal army a** thata**s Rule 44 a** yes, there are rules. And when they do something it never goes quite as planned. The internet has no neat endings.

 The trickster as myth proved so compelling that the network made it real. Anonymous, the neta**s trickster, emerged like supernatural movie monster out of the misty realm of ideas and into the real world.

 a**Ultra-coordinated motherfuckerya**

 But to be historical, leta**s start with 4chan.org, a wildly popular board for sharing images and talking about them, and in particular, 4chana**s /b/ board (Really, really, NSFW). /b/ is a web forum where posts have no author names and there are no archives and ita**s explicitly about anything at all. This technological format meeting with the internet in the early 21st Century gave birth to Anonymous, and it remains the mothera**s teat from which Anonymous sucks. (Rule 22)

 Once you pull your hands away from your face and start looking, /b/ is hard to look away from.

 /b/ is the id of the internet, the collective unconsciousa**s version of the place from which the base drives arise. There is no sophistication in the slurs, sexuality, and destruction in the savage landscape of /b/ a** it is the natural state of networked man.

 In this, it has a kind of innocence and purity. Terms like a**niggera** and a**faggota** are common, but not there because of racism and bigotry a** though racism and bigotry are easily found there. Their use is there to keep you out. These words are heads on pikes warning you that further in it gets much worse, and it does.

 Nearly any human appetite is acceptable, nearly any flaw exploited, and probably photographed with a time stamp. But /b/ reminds us that the id is the seat of creative energy. Much of it, hell even most of it, is harmless or even sweet. People reach out for help on /b/, and they find encouragement and advice. The id and /b/ are the foxholes of those who feel powerless and disenfranchised.

 Thata**s what youa**ll find in /b/, the unspoken. a**/b/tardsa**, as denizens of the board are called and call themselves, create incest porn, fantasize about beating women, look for dataviz examples or coding tips. They are grown men that really want to talk about a**My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.a** Maybe ita**s ironic, maybe ita**s not. (Ia**m told by one such brony that the show is just a lot better than youa**d expect.)

 At some moment lost in its unrecorded history, /b/ and Anonymous reached an inflection point, and the id spilled into the rest of the net in the form of a**ultra-coordinated motherfuckery,a** as one anon described it Coleman. This was the ability to use the technological tools of social coordination so quickly and well that anons working together could collectively attack targets for any perceived slight, or just for fun, without those targets ever having a chance to see it coming or defend themselves.

 These came to be called a**raids.a**

 Over time raids took many forms, eventually moving into the regular world. They could look like protests, massively coordinated pranks, distributed denial of service attacks (DDOS) or straight-up hacking attacks. D0xing, ordering unpaid pizzas, signing people up for embarrassing junk mail were all common raids. Therea**s a raid that you know for sure. Ita**s likely youa**ve even participated, and even more likely youa**ve been a victim of it; the rickroll. The rickroll began as a tool of the /b/tard/Anonymous raid, before spreading so far into the culture that the Oregon legislature and even the US Speaker of the House were rickrolling the world.

 Anonymous spat out other memes like lolcats and pedobear that spread far enough for their origins to be lost to many, but with little profound effect on the rest of the world.

 Even then Anonymous had a vigilante streak, and it could be downright mean. Theya**d d0x someone who abused a cat. In particular they went after abusers of cats, because Anonymous loves cats and pictures of cats. They blocked the pool at the online kida**s game Habbo Hotel with black, generously froa**d avatars declaring a**Pool is closed due to AIDSa** as a protest to perceived racism on the part of Habboa**s admins.

 But Anonymous was never particularly focused. Raids could be devastating or funny, but either way they came and went quickly, the neta**s own little tornado system. Anonymous was never anyonea**s personal army, and never stayed on any one topic for very long.

 It took Tom Cruise to change all that and give Anonymous a political consciousness. Specifically, Tom Cruise as cringe-worthy Scientologist.

 Birth of the a**Moralfagsa**

 A video of a disturbingly manic Cruise leaked out of Scientology in January 2008, and the notably litigious church tried to force hosting services and Gawker to take it down with legal nastygrams.

 But the video contained some truly epic lulz, and Anonymous wouldna**t let it die. The churcha**s effort to kill it off so enraged Anons they decided to destroy the church itself. By enraged, I mean a pissy kind of laughing and spitting at once. For Anonymous being mad meant wanting to troll the church very hard, but it was never to get serious, because getting serious for Anons meant losing.

 To accomplish this op (short for operation), Anons created Project Chanology, which arguably marked both the birth of political consciousness for Anonymous, and the development of its methods of taking mass action.

 Destroying the church was going to be aggro funny, as well as require a lot of dancing. Many have wondered since then, were they serious about destroying the church, or was it all a joke?

 The answer is yes, and understanding that is vital to understanding Anonymous.

 Therea**s no proof that the people that started Project Chanology had any personal beefs against the Church of Scientology beyond their secondhand annoyance at the Churcha**s litigious history and attempted suppression of speech. But probably most importantly, the Church was rampantly guilty of feeding the trolls. (Rule 14)

 But Project Chanology was the perfect way for the people who did have a history with Scientology to jump under the wing of the haughty and lulzy collective. Scientology had pursued its detractors with mean spirited ruthlessness, delving into critica**s personal lives, following them with investigators and ruining their reputations.

 Anonymous didna**t care. Call them rapists, and theya**d laughingly tell you they were child rapists. Accuse them of any crime, and they could point to worse on /b/. Anonymity and the a**words will never hurt mea** ethic that arose out of the aesthetic of extremes on 4chan made them immune to the Churcha**s arsenal.

 But some existing Anons, and the ones that came in from the community of Scientology detractors, really cared about winning this one. They wanted to be the good guys and Scientology to play the bad guys. The Church, they reasoned, hurt people, took their money, and lied to them under the guise of being caretakers and teachers.

 Anonymous claimed to do all those bad things too, but didna**t really, and would never promise to take care of you and teach you, but sometimes did anyway.

 As Coleman put it in her study, they were the perfect nemeses. But Anons caring about doing the right thing is about morality, and morality, at least straight morality, is not the lulz. Many veterans saw this as a corruption of the purity of Anonymous a** the cancer that was killing /b/.

 On February 10, 2008, the a**moralfagsa** took the whole thing to a new level. They set up meeting times and places in cities around the world, bought masks and made signs.

 Anons left the internet by the thousands and showed up in front of church locations and Scientology centers around the world, many wearing their new Guy Fawkes masks, V for Vendetta movie merchandise sold by Warner Brothers, to obscure their identities.

 They played music and walked around with signs which both accused Scientology of crimes and referenced obscure internet memes. They met each other in meat space for the first time. They partied with their own in front of aghast Scientologists in more than 90 cities.

 For the first time, the internet had shown up on the real street, en masse.

 And yes, they brought Long Cat.

 Coming soon: Part Two: Three Years of Epic Trolling the Church of Scientology, the LOIC, and OpPayback

 This post is part of a special series from Quinn Norton, who is embedding with Occupy protestors and going beyond the headlines with Anonymous for Wired.com. For an introduction to the series, read Quinna**s description of the project.


 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

   --
   Sean Noonan
   Tactical Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967
   www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-08 23:55:18",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1031554_re-ct-anonymous-101-introduction-to-the-lulz-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","mailto:ct@stratfor.com","ct@stratfor.com",""
1031933,"Re: has the wikileaks site stopped working for anyone else?
","   Just checked, up to 505 now.  Research is backing them up as we speak.

   Marko Papic wrote:

     Let's make sure we check like every hour to see if anything has been
     further downloaded.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Kevin Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Cc: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 2:03:59 PM
     Subject: RE: has the wikileaks site stopped working for anyone else?

     I've got 291 cables backed up at
     https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/

      

      

     From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
     [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com] On Behalf Of Marko Papic
     Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 14:00
     To: Analyst List
     Cc: Reva Bhalla
     Subject: Re: has the wikileaks site stopped working for anyone else?

      

     This is why it is crucial that we download all the files whenever they
     are available.

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Anya Alfano\" <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Cc: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2010 1:55:23 PM
     Subject: Re: has the wikileaks site stopped working for anyone else?

     Possible explanation --

     http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/article/did-amazon-just-pull-the-plug-on-the-wikileaks-website/19740475

            Did Amazon Just Pull the Plug on the WikiLeaks Website?

     Updated: 6 minutes ago

     Print Text Size

     Print this page|EmailShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on DiggShare
     on Lifestream

     David             Knowles

     David Knowles Writer

     AOL News Surge Desk

     (Dec. 1) -- Who turned out the lights?

     Today, key portions of the WikiLeaks website went down, prompting
     speculation that Amazon.com, the host for the WikiLeaks site, may have
     bowed to pressure to sever service to the whistle-blower group, The
     Associated Press reported.

     While the main page at WikiLeaks.org has been sporadically available for
     some of the day, attempts to open a link that leads to the latest trove
     of classified U.S. government documents result in an error message.

     Amazon.com has so far offered no confirmation of its possible role in
     the partial shutdown of the WikiLeaks site. But a statement released by
     Sen. Joe Lieberman confirms that Amazon has officially given WikiLeaks
     the boot:

     This morning Amazon informed my staff that it has ceased to host the
     Wikileaks website. I wish that Amazon had taken this action earlier
     based on Wikileaks' previous publication of classified material. The
     company's decision to cut off Wikileaks now is the right decision and
     should set the standard for other companies Wikileaks is using to
     distribute its illegally seized material. I call on any other company or
     organization that is hosting Wikileaks to immediately terminate its
     relationship with them. Wikileaks' illegal, outrageous, and reckless
     acts have compromised our national security and put lives at risk around
     the world. No responsible company - whether American or foreign - should
     assist Wikileaks in its efforts to disseminate these stolen materials. I
     will be asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with
     Wikileaks and what it and other web service providers will do in the
     future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen,
     classified information.

     Since releasing more than 250,000 State Department cables on a variety
     of sensitive topics, WikiLeaks.org has undergone attacks by hackers that
     have limited availability to the documents the group also released to
     The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel and Al-Jazeera.

     According to The Washington Post, at least one of the hackers
     responsible for the attack on WikiLeaks is believed to be a \"patriotic\"
     American angered by the group's ongoing campaign to publish state
     secrets.

     With Julian Assange now being hunted by Interpol, and WikiLeaks' losing
     its American web host, it might be tempting to think that the group will
     soon be out of business. But given the fact that Assange has made it
     known that he possesses a vast amount of potentially damaging
     information yet to leak, some possibly about the Bank of America,
     there's no indication that the world has heard the last of WikiLeaks.

     On 12/1/10 1:12 PM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

     im getting nada

     --
     Marko Papic

     STRATFOR Analyst
     C: + 1-512-905-3091
     marko.papic@stratfor.com

     --
     Marko Papic

     STRATFOR Analyst
     C: + 1-512-905-3091
     marko.papic@stratfor.com

 --
 Matthew Powers
 STRATFOR Researcher
 Matthew.Powers@stratfor.com
","2010-12-01 21:14:51",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1031933_re-has-the-wikileaks-site-stopped-working-for-anyone-else-.html","matthew.powers@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com","attach/98/98172_image001.jpg"
1031974,"Re: Info - Wiki Founder
","   I would think that's the second to last place he would want to go.

   GCHQ/london police/MI5 could easily find him, and I don't see why Cameron
   and friends wouldn't be 100% agreeable to extradition.

   But you're right, this is also the last report I saw. This could actually
   mean the US has decided NOT to go after him.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Bayless Parsley <bayless.parsley@stratfor.com>
   Sender: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:14:30 -0600
   To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: Info - Wiki Founder
   no, last he was heard from was in Britain.... and he sounded SUPER
   paranoid

   this was before shit hit the fan like it has now hit following the pub of
   the diplo cables

   WikiLeaks Founder on the Run, Trailed by Notoriety

   By JOHN F. BURNS and RAVI SOMAIYA

   10/23/10

   http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

   LONDON - Julian Assange moves like a hunted man. In a noisy Ethiopian
   restaurant in London's rundown Paddington district, he pitches his voice
   barely above a whisper to foil the Western intelligence agencies he fears.

   He demands that his dwindling number of loyalists use expensive encrypted
   cellphones and swaps his own the way other men change shirts. He checks
   into hotels under false names, dyes his hair, sleeps on sofas and floors,
   and uses cash instead of credit cards, often borrowed from friends.

   \"By being determined to be on this path, and not to compromise, I've wound
   up in an extraordinary situation,\" Mr. Assange said over lunch last
   Sunday, when he arrived sporting a woolen beanie and a wispy stubble and
   trailing a youthful entourage that included a filmmaker assigned to
   document any unpleasant surprises.

   In his remarkable journey to notoriety, Mr. Assange, founder of the
   WikiLeaks whistle-blowers' Web site, sees the next few weeks as his most
   hazardous. Now he is making his most brazen disclosure yet: 391,832 secret
   documents on the Iraqi war. He held a news conference in London on
   Saturday, saying that the release \"constituted the most comprehensive and
   detailed account of any war ever to have entered the public record.\"

   Twelve weeks ago, he posted on his organization's Web site some 77,000
   classified Pentagon documents on the Afghan conflict.

   Much has changed since 2006, when Mr. Assange, a 39-year-old Australian,
   used years of computer hacking and what friends call a near genius I.Q. to
   establish WikiLeaks, redefining whistle-blowing by gathering secrets in
   bulk, storing them beyond the reach of governments and others determined
   to retrieve them, then releasing them instantly, and globally.

   Now it is not just governments that denounce him: some of his own comrades
   are abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behavior,
   and a nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the
   digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood.

   Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan
   documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for
   NATO troops. \"We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he
   spoke about it afterwards,\" said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks
   volunteer and a member of Iceland's Parliament. \"If he could just focus on
   the important things he does, it would be better.\"

   He is also being investigated in connection with accusations of rape and
   molestation involving two Swedish women. Mr. Assange has denied the
   allegations, saying the relations were consensual. But prosecutors in
   Sweden have yet to formally approve charges or dismiss the case eight
   weeks after the complaints against Mr. Assange were filed, damaging his
   quest for a secure base for himself and WikiLeaks. Though he characterizes
   the claims as \"a smear campaign,\" the scandal has compounded the pressures
   of his cloaked life.

   \"When it comes to the point where you occasionally look forward to being
   in prison on the basis that you might be able to spend a day reading a
   book, the realization dawns that perhaps the situation has become a little
   more stressful than you would like,\" he said over the London lunch.

   Exposing Secrets

   Mr. Assange has come a long way from an unsettled childhood in Australia
   as a self-acknowledged social misfit who narrowly avoided prison after
   being convicted on 25 charges of computer hacking in 1995. History is
   punctuated by spies, defectors and others who revealed the most
   inflammatory secrets of their age. Mr. Assange has become that figure for
   the Internet era, with as yet unreckoned consequences for himself and for
   the keepers of the world's secrets.

   \"I've been waiting 40 years for someone to disclose information on a scale
   that might really make a difference,\" said Daniel Ellsberg, who exposed a
   1,000-page secret study of the Vietnam War in 1971 that became known as
   the Pentagon Papers.

   Mr. Ellsberg said he saw kindred spirits in Mr. Assange and Pfc. Bradley
   Manning, the 22-year-old former Army intelligence operative under
   detention in Quantico, Va., suspected of leaking the Iraq and Afghan
   documents.

   \"They were willing to go to prison for life, or be executed, to put out
   this information,\" Mr. Ellsberg said.

   Underlying Mr. Assange's anxieties is deep uncertainty about what the
   United States and its allies may do next. Pentagon and Justice department
   officials have said they are weighing his actions under the 1917 Espionage
   Act. They have demanded that Mr. Assange \"return\" all government documents
   in his possession, undertake not to publish any new ones and not \"solicit\"
   further American materials.

   Mr. Assange has responded by going on the run, but has found no refuge.
   Amid the Afghan documents controversy, he flew to Sweden, seeking a
   residence permit and protection under that country's broad press freedoms.
   His initial welcome was euphoric.

   \"They called me the James Bond of journalism,\" he recalled wryly. \"It got
   me a lot of fans, and some of them ended up causing me a bit of trouble.\"

   Within days, his liaisons with two Swedish women led to an arrest warrant
   on charges of rape and molestation. Karin Rosander, a spokesperson for the
   prosecutor, said last week that the police were continuing to investigate.

   In late September, he left Stockholm for Berlin. A bag he checked on the
   almost empty flight disappeared, with three encrypted laptops. It has not
   resurfaced; Mr. Assange suspects it was intercepted. From Germany, he
   traveled to London, wary at being detained on arrival. Under British law,
   his Australian passport entitles him to remain for six months. Iceland,
   another country with generous press freedoms and a strong WikiLeaks
   following, has also lost its appeal, with Mr. Assange concluding that its
   government, like Britain's, is too easily influenced by Washington. In his
   native Australia, ministers have signaled their willingness to cooperate
   with the United States if it opens a prosecution. Mr. Assange said a
   senior Australian official told him, \"You play outside the rules, and you
   will be dealt with outside the rules.\"

   He faces attack from within, too.

   After the Sweden scandal, strains within WikiLeaks reached a breaking
   point, with some of Mr. Assange's closest collaborators publicly
   defecting. The New York Times spoke with dozens of people who have worked
   with and supported him in Iceland, Sweden, Germany, Britain and the United
   States. What emerged was a picture of the founder of WikiLeaks as its
   prime innovator and charismatic force but as someone whose growing
   celebrity has been matched by an increasingly dictatorial, eccentric and
   capricious style.

   Internal Turmoil

   Effectively, as Mr. Assange pursues his fugitive's life, his leadership is
   enforced over the Internet. Even remotely, his style is imperious. In an
   online exchange with one volunteer, a transcript of which was obtained by
   The Times, he warned that WikiLeaks would disintegrate without him. \"We've
   been in a Unity or Death situation for a few months now,\" he said.

   When Herbert Snorrason, a 25-year-old political activist in Iceland,
   questioned Mr. Assange's judgment over a number of issues in an online
   exchange last month, Mr. Assange was uncompromising. \"I don't like your
   tone,\" he said, according to a transcript. \"If it continues, you're out.\"

   Mr. Assange cast himself as indispensable. \"I am the heart and soul of
   this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder,
   organizer, financier, and all the rest,\" he said. \"If you have a problem
   with me,\" he told Mr. Snorrason, using an expletive, he should quit.

   In an interview about the exchange, Mr. Snorrason's conclusion was stark.
   \"He is not in his right mind,\" he said. In London, Mr. Assange was
   dismissive of all those who have criticized him. \"These are not
   consequential people,\" he said.

   \"About a dozen\" disillusioned volunteers have left recently, said Smari
   McCarthy, an Icelandic volunteer who has distanced himself in the recent
   turmoil. In late summer, Mr. Assange suspended Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a
   German who had been the WikiLeaks spokesman under the pseudonym Daniel
   Schmitt, accusing him of unspecified \"bad behavior.\" Many more activists,
   Mr. McCarthy said, are likely to follow.

   Mr. Assange denied that any important volunteers had quit, apart from Mr.
   Domscheit-Berg. But further defections could paralyze an organization that
   Mr. Assange says has 40 core volunteers and about 800 mostly unpaid
   followers to maintain a diffuse web of computer servers and to secure the
   system against attack - to guard against the kind of infiltration that
   WikiLeaks itself has used to generate its revelations.

   Mr. Assange's detractors also accuse him of pursuing a vendetta against
   the United States. In London, Mr. Assange said America was an increasingly
   militarized society and a threat to democracy. Moreover, he said, \"we have
   been attacked by the United States, so we are forced into a position where
   we must defend ourselves.\"

   Even among those challenging Mr. Assange's leadership style, there is
   recognition that the intricate computer and financial architecture
   WikiLeaks uses to shield it against its enemies has depended on its
   founder. \"He's very unique and extremely capable,\" said Ms. Jonsdottir,
   the Icelandic lawmaker.

   A Rash of Scoops

   Before posting the documents on Afghanistan and Iraq, WikiLeaks enjoyed a
   string of coups.

   Supporters were thrilled when the organization posted documents on the
   Guantanamo Bay detention operation, the contents of Sarah Palin's personal
   Yahoo email account, reports of extrajudicial killings in Kenya and East
   Timor, the membership rolls of the neo-Nazi British National Party and a
   combat video showing American Apache helicopters in Baghdad in 2007
   gunning down at least 12 people, including two Reuters journalists.

   But now, WikiLeaks has been met with new doubts. Amnesty International and
   Reporters Without Borders have joined the Pentagon in criticizing the
   organization for risking people's lives by publishing war logs identifying
   Afghans working for the Americans or acting as informers.

   A Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan using the pseudonym Zabiullah Mujahid
   said in a telephone interview that the Taliban had formed a nine-member
   \"commission\" after the Afghan documents were posted \"to find about people
   who are spying.\" He said the Taliban had a \"wanted\" list of 1,800 Afghans
   and was comparing that with names WikiLeaks provided.

   \"After the process is completed, our Taliban court will decide about such
   people,\" he said.

   Mr. Assange defended posting unredacted documents, saying he balanced his
   decision \"with the knowledge of the tremendous good and prevention of harm
   that is caused\" by putting the information into the public domain. \"There
   are no easy choices on the table for this organization,\" he said.

   But if Mr. Assange is sustained by his sense of mission, faith is fading
   among his fellow conspirators. His mood was caught vividly in an exchange
   on Sept. 20 with another senior WikiLeaks figure. In an encrypted online
   chat, a transcript of which was passed to The Times, Mr. Assange was
   dismissive of his colleagues. He described them as \"a confederacy of
   fools,\" and asked his interlocutor, \"Am I dealing with a complete retard?\"

   In London, Mr. Assange was angered when asked about the rifts. He
   responded testily to questions about WikiLeaks's opaque finances, Private
   Manning's fate and WikiLeaks's apparent lack of accountability to anybody
   but himself, calling the questions \"cretinous,\" \"facile\" and reminiscent
   of \"kindergarten.\"

   Mr. Assange has been equivocal about Private Manning, talking in late
   summer as though the soldier was unavoidable collateral damage, much like
   the Afghans named as informers in the secret Pentagon documents.

   But in London, he took a more sympathetic view, describing Private Manning
   as a \"political prisoner\" facing a jail term of up to 52 years, without
   confirming that he was the source of the disclosed war logs. \"We have a
   duty to assist Mr. Manning and other people who are facing legal and other
   consequences,\" he said.

   Mr. Assange's own fate seems as imperiled as Private Manning's. Last
   Monday, the Swedish Migration Board said Mr. Assange's bid for a residence
   permit had been rejected. His British visa will expire early next year.
   When he left the London restaurant at twilight, heading into the shadows,
   he declined to say where he was going. The man who has put some of the
   world's most powerful institutions on his watch list was, once more, on
   the move.

   Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington, and Dexter Filkins
   from Kabul, Afghanistan.

   On 12/1/10 1:29 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

 Is he even still in sweden?

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Lena Bell <lena.bell@stratfor.com>
 Sender: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
 Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 13:10:26
 To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
 Reply-To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
 Subject: Re: Info - Wiki Founder


 Not sure that's happening re Oz; federal police have opened up an
 investigation to see whether or not any Australian criminal laws were
 broken. - where did Nick get the insight about an agreed extradition -
 there is nothing about this on OS and of course it would mean Assange
 would have to come home first. Something he is very unlikely to do.
 GovGen hasn't ruled out canceling his passport incidentally.
 His mother has recently been interviewed by the ABC and she is scared
 that he will be \"hunted down and jailed\"...  will make it difficult to
 pursue the scenario painted below. Australians are likely to back him.
 You wouldn't believe how much press/public sentiment david hicks created
 in Guantanamo Bay. It really forced the Howard govt to change tactics...
 esp when polling results overall were so poor.**

 Bayless Parsley wrote:

 The main thing I was trying to ask about earlier was in regards to the
 logistics of actually detaining the guy.

 I got the sense that Fred was saying US agents could physically do it
 in another country. Perhaps I just misunderstood what he was trying to
 say, because I find that really hard to believe (as rendition is not
 an option in this case, which is why I brought up the fact that some
 Republican congressmen are trying to call Assange a \"terrorist\" now).

 Basic fact is that any move to arrest the guy (assuming they get an
 indictment for him) would require that a friendly government do it and
 then extradite him. Nick Miller told me the Australians have already
 offered to do this, as Assange is an Australian citizen, and Australia
 is the Canada of the southern hemisphere when it comes to its
 relations with the US.

 Also, Karen had a very good point about the sex charges. Weren't those
 dropped months ago after the initial allegations? What do ya know,
 after the US explictly warned him time and again to stop publishing
 the cables, it pops back up all of a sudden...



 On 12/1/10 12:36 PM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

 can you charge them with anything if they paid for the information?


 On Dec 1, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:


 You mean by helping Manning get the information off the networks?
 Training, computer codes, flash drives, etc??
 That's a good point.

 On 12/1/10 12:31 PM, George Friedman wrote:

 He might have facilitated or suborned the access. For example,
 provided the means for distirbuting it.

 Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 *From: *Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
 *Date: *Wed, 1 Dec 2010 12:19:09 -0600 (CST)
 *To: *Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
 *ReplyTo: *Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
 *Subject: *Re: Info - Wiki Founder

 I think it's very difficult to indict him on anything though.
 MAYBE espionage, but even those laws are still too old.  I think
 your FBI contact is right (sadly).  the US can really only get the
 person who did the leak, not who published it--George also pointed
 this out over the weekend.

 What would the sealed indictment be for?

 (this is also why they will get him on some other charges in
 another country....)

 On 12/1/10 12:15 PM, Fred Burton wrote:

 Sealed indictment.  Hand the warrant over to the USMS to execute.
 Happens everyday.  The USMS works w/their counterparts and lock the dude
 up.

 Bayless Parsley wrote:


 How would it work if the US wanted to catch such a high profile target
 like this? Despite what one Republican senator may have said the other
 day (can't remember who, or if it was even a senator), he's not a
 \"terrorist,\" and so rendition..... wouldn't really be an option.

 But legally, you'd have to have the host government's cooperation. Is
 there any way aside from that scenario that could lead to his arrest
 on charges of breaking US laws?


 On 12/1/10 12:12 PM, Fred Burton wrote:


 >From a very good contact @ the FBI --


 How come you guys haven't picked this left-wing lunatic WikiLeaks founder up on
 some sort of trumped up charge?

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 1st Amendment overprotects journalists.




 --
 Sean Noonan
 Tactical Analyst
 Office: +1 512-279-9479
 Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Sean Noonan
 Tactical Analyst
 Office: +1 512-279-9479
 Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
 www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-01 21:17:05",1,"2012-02-29 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1031974_re-info-wiki-founder-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1032380,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1032380_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1033040,"[alpha] INSIGHT - CHINA/AUSTRALIA - Gillard Visit - CN65
","   SOURCE:  CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 3/4
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

   Some high level impressions for you. 
   Gillard has caved in on human rights. Her comments on human rights in
   China were prefaced with \"this is an issue which we'll disagree...\" which
   is code for \"you can ignore this because we know you will\".
   The Labor govt have taken a tough line on foreign investment lately and
   recent cyber attacks will have fortified that view in Canberra. In
   addition BHP will be telling them they have excess capital and don't need
   Chinese investment funds as they can't invest what they have. 
   The talk of closer defence ties with China is puzzling at face value but
   probably doesn't mean much. We already have military exchanges and the CDF
   does an annual visit to meet his Chinese counterpart. The statement didn't
   offer anything new. 
   Korea was just for the anniversary of the Battle of Kapyong and because
   Gillard had to have an excuse to be absent from Australia on Anzac Day. No
   business was done there with the ROK govt. 
   Japan is a different kettle of fish. In spite of WW2 Japan has long been a
   major trade partner. Gillard's statements there should be taken at face
   value. She will also have been trying to figure out Japan's real economic
   state. 
   Economically the real joker in the pack was the place she didn't visit -
   India. China will be aware the Aust govt has allowed 100% Indian ownership
   of two major resource projects in the Galilee whereas Chinese resource
   investment has been subject to strict conditions since Sept 2009 and a
   number of takeovers of similar or smaller size have been vetoed. 
   The Gillard visit to China should be examined not in the context of what
   they got, but what China didn't get.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 richmond@stratfor.com
 (512) 744-4324
 www.stratfor.com

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19
","2011-04-28 15:52:19",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1033040_-alpha-insight-china-australia-gillard-visit-cn65-.html","ben.preisler@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1033882,"Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta conflict in
	context
","   He has long been pegged as a Zeta supporter in the Mexican Media and even
   the LA Times. There are videos all over Youtube that say he's a crook.
    
   From: Marko Primorac <marko.primorac@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 17:25:49 -0500 (CDT)
   To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict in context
   Great stuff -- I guess one thing you may want to maybe that no legal
   action has been taken against Rosario Torres to date over the Anonymous
   posting.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Matt Mawhinney\" <matt.mawhinney@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 5:16:18 PM
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict        in context

   One comment in blue. 

   On 11/1/11 4:51 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     also i don't think widget is the appropriate term - script maybe?
     protocol? kevin might actually know the technical term.

     On 11/1/11 4:48 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

       I think it might be good to mention what was said in the dispatch
       discussion: that this is a brand new type of cyber attack against
       cartels, exposing rather than intel collection and disruption, which
       is what government agencies do.

       On 11/1/11 1:11 PM, scott stewart wrote:

          Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta Conflict in Context

         On Oct. 31, the online activist collective Anonymous posted a
         message to the internet  in which it stated that it was continuing
         with its campaign against the Mexican criminal cartels and their
         governmentsupporters despite the inherent danger.

          

         The messageurged inexperienced activists who might not be practicing
         proper online security measures to abstain from participating. It
         also urged individuals associated with Anonymous to not conduct
         physical pamphlet drops, participate in protests, wear or purchase
         Guy Fawkes masks, or use Guy Fawkes imagery in their internet or
         physical world activities.  Guy Fawkes was British Catholic
         conspirator who was involved in a plot to bomb the British
         Parliament in 1605, and who has become somewhat of an Anarchist icon
         in the United Kingdom. The British celebrate Guy Fawkes Day each
         year on Nov. 5, and the day has special meaning for the anarchists. 
         Not incorrect but the use of the Guy Fawkes mask as the face of Anon
         stems from the graphic novel and subsequent Hollywood movie V for
         Vendetta.

          

         It is not coincidental then, that in their Oct. 6 video, Anonymous
         set Nov. 5 as the deadline for Los Zetas to release the Anonymous
         associate who was allegedly kidnapped in Veracruz by Los Zetas. The
         Anonymous associate was reportedly abducted during an Anonymous
         leaflet campaign called Operation Paperstorm.

          

         The Oct. 31message acknowledged that the operation against Los
         Zetas, dubbed \"# OpCartel\" I am not sure if the hashtag is not just
         the twitter handle, should be checked is dangerous and noted that
         the collective would be assembling a hand-picked group of known and
         trusted associates to participate in a special task force to execute
         the operation. It asked supporters to use a software widget they had
         developed in order to anonymously pass information pertaining to
         drug trafficking to the task force, which will then distribute it. 

          

         With Nov. 5, approaching, and at least some elements of Anonymous
         not backing down on their threats to Los Zetas, we thought it would
         be useful to provide some context to the present conflict between
         Anonymous and Los Zetas and to also address some of its potential
         implications.

          

         Context

          

         First it issignificant to understand that the epicenter of this
         event is Veracruz, which  has been a very busy place over the past
         few months in terms of Mexico's cartel wars. The port city also
         serves as a critical transportation hub for the narcotics smuggling
         activities of the Los Zetas cartel. Because of this, Stratfor has
         identified Veracruz as [link
         http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111024-mexican-drug-war-update-polarization-continues
         ] a bellweather city thatwill help determine the trajectory of the
         Los Zetas cartel in the coming months. 

          

         One of the big recent developments in Veracruz was the Sinaloa
         cartel's push into the Zeta stronghold using the [link
         http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-mexico-security-memo-zetas-defensive-veracruz
         ] Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG), which using the name
         Matazetas (Zeta killers) conducted some high-profile body dumps of
         over 50 alleged low-level Zeta operatives on Sept. 20 and 22.  On
         Oct. 25, Mexican Marines arrested Carlos Arturo Pitalua-Carillo, \"El
         Bam Bam,\" who was Los Zetas plaza boss in Veracruz.  This means that
         in Veracruz at the present time, Los Zetas are feeling pressure from
         both the Government of Mexico and the CJNG.

          

         Into this dynamic flow, we had the Anonymous internet collective
         begin to take action in Veracruz in August. In response to what
         Anonymous saw as the state of Veracruz supporting the Los Zetas
         cartel, they launched Operation Paperstorm, in which activists
         associated with the Anonymous collective distributed leaflets
         throughout Veracruz claiming the state government supports Los
         Zetas.  They conducted major leaflet distributions on Aug. 13, 20,
         and 29. They also released videos to the internet on Aug. 26 and 29,
         condemning the State of Veracruz. (According to the Oct. 6 Anonymous
         video, Los Zetas allegedly kidnapped one of the activists involved
         in Operation Paperstorm.)

          

         Activities outside of Veracruz have also played a part in setting
         the stage. On Sept. 13, two people were tortured and killed and
         their bodies hung from a pedestrianoverpass in Nuevo Laredo,
         Tamaulipas state.  Signs left with the bodies signified that Los
         Zetas had killed the pair because they had posted information
         pertaining to Los Zetas on blogs that specialize in reporting on the
         Mexican cartels. On Sept 26, the body of Marisol Macias Casteneda
         was found beheaded in a park in Nuevo Laredo.   Macias who worked
         for a local newspaper allegedly posted on cartel blogs using the
         nickname \"Laredo Girl.\" A message found with her body noted that she
         was killed by Los Zetas due to her online activities.

          

         Following the death of Laredo Girl, Anonymous claimed responsibility
         for a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack conducted against
         the official website of the state of Veracruz. Although she was
         killed by Los Zetas in Nuevo Laredo Tamaulipas, Anonymous said their
         attack on the Veracruz state website was because of the death of
         Laredo Girl.

          

         It is also important to recognize that Anonymous was also unhappy
         with the State of Veracruz over the decision of the state to
         prosecute two individuals who had posted false kidnapping reports on
         Twitter on Aug. 25. The false reports alleged that a group of
         children had been abducted from a Veracruz school and the panic
         caused by the report allegedly resulted in some two dozen traffic
         accidents as terrified parents rushed to the school to check o n
         their children. The so-called \"twitter terrorists\" were initially
         charged with offenses that could have carried a 30-year sentence.
         Anonymous, which has absolute freedom of speech on the internet as
         one of its foundational principles, took umbrage with this stiff
         penalty for the Twitter case - especially because it stood in stark
         contrast with the impunity many cartel figures enjoy in Mexico. 

          

          

         Following the Oct. 6 release of the video in which Anonymous
         threatened Los Zetas if they did not release the kidnapped anonymous
         activist, Stratfor began to focus on the story, and in light of the
         approaching Nov. 5 deadline, decided to publish an, [link
         http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111028-mexicos-cartels-draw-online-activists-ire
         ] analysis of the topic, which was released on Oct. 28.  

          

         Following the release of our analysis, the topic has received a
         great deal of media coverage. This publicity has generated a very
         interesting response from Anonymous -- one that emphasizes the fast
         that it is a collective of people and not an organization.  As some
         Anonymousactivists were backing off the issue, erasing online user
         accounts, suggesting that the operation against Los Zetas had been a
         hoax and claiming that no activist had been kidnapped, other
         activists suggested that the campaign should be suspended. Still
         other activists became more strident and determined in their posts,
         urging that the campaign continue. Since Anonymous is a collective,
         activists can pick and choose which actions they will participate
         in. that means in his case that those activists who want to refrain
         from the campaign will and those who want to participate will
         continue it.

          

         This will to continue was manifested on Oct. 29, the personal
         website of Gustavo RosarioTorres, the former attorney general of the
         Mexican state of Tobasco was hacked and defaced with a message from
         Anonymous Mexico stating that Rosario was aZeta -  It was also
         reflected in the tone of the Oct. 31 message. Some activists
         associated with Anonymous clearly feel compelled to continue with
         the campaign due to the outpouring of public support they received
         in the wake of the media coverage. According to the Oct 31. Video
         statement:

          

         \"we received many expressions of support and solidarity as well as
         the voices of people crying for help. We must remember that we are
         on the side of the people, and we cannot let down the people,
         especially in critical moments like the one they currently live in.\"

          

         We therefore anticipate that some Anonymous activists will continue
         the campaign. We also believe that Los Zetas will respond.

          

         Revenge of the Sith (Yes Kamran, I agree with Isa that Star Wars is
         better than Star Trek)  Star Wars III-IV are, the rest don't exist
         in my book.

          

         The variouscartel groups in Mexico have long used the internet as a
         place to trumpet their triumphs on the battlefield and to taunt and
         even degrade their enemies. The cartels have posted videos of them
         torturing, executing and beheading members of opposing cartels. They
         also frequently monitor narco blogs and sometimeseven post on them. 
         As demonstrated by the blogger killings in Nuevo Laredo in
         September, Los Zetas appear to possess at least some rudimentary
         capability to trace online activity to people in thephysical world.
         It is not known if they employ their own team of dedicated cyber
         experts or if they rely on sources within the Mexican government -
         although the most likely answer is probably a little of both. 

          

          

         In past Anonymous actions, like the Dec. 2010 attack against Pay Pal
         following the Wikileaks case, governments in the U.S. and the UK
         have arrested numerous individuals associated with Anonymous who
         allegedly participated in the attack. In June 2011, Turkey arrested
         dozens of activists associated with Anonymousactions conducted
         against the Turkish government for its efforts to establish a
         national internet filtering system.

          

         Los Zetas, like the other Mexican cartels, do not take affronts
         lightly. Even if Anonymous is not able to provide information that
         will damage Los Zetas smuggling operations, the very fact that this
         group has decided to challenge Los Zetas publicly will result in
         some sort of response. The big question is: do theypossess the
         capability to effectively trace the organizers of the
         Anonymousaction against them?

          

         One problem with an entity such as Anonymous is that it is
         intentionally amorphous - it is also as transnational as the
         internet, and it would not be surprising if many of those chosen to
         participate in the operation against Los Zetas are located outside
         of Mexico in locations such as the U.S. and Europe which are outside
         the immediate reach of Los Zetas.

          

         But the amorphous nature of Anonymous can also cut the other way. 
         If Los Zetas pick up and execute some random patrons from an
         internet cafe, behead them and place Guy Fawkesmasks on their heads,
         it will be very difficult to prove that they were not  associated
         with  Anonymous.  As Anonymous noted in their Oct. 31 video, this is
         dangerous business.

          

          

         The Big Picture

          

         One thing to watch as the Anonymous operation continues is the way
         in which the Mexican public reacts. Many people in the Mexican
         middle and upper classes have been deeply affected by the criminal
         cartels and theviolence the practice. We talk to many people in
         Mexico who are fearful of being kidnapped. In many communities,
         especially places like Juarez, Torreon, Monterrey and Veracruz,
         businessmen are being caught in a terrible bind. On one hand, they
         are receiving ever-increasing extortion demands from the cartels,
         while at the same time their business revenues are dwindling because
         people are afraid to go out due to the violence associated with
         those same cartels. This is forcing many businessmen out of
         business. It is also creating a great deal of frustration and
         resentment.

          

         At the same time, Mexico has become one of the most dangerous
         countries in the world for journalists, and many media companies
         practice heavy self-censorship to protect themselves. In the wake of
         the September blogger killings some of the narco blogs, like Blog
         del Narco, have also exhibited strong signs of fear inspired
         self-censorship.   This means that the legitimate press is not able
         to be of any real aid to the Mexican people.

          

         Mexican citizens are also frustrated with their government, which is
         well-known for corruption.  This is the sentiment feeding Anonymous'
         original campaign in Veracruz.  This frustration has lead some
         people to begin to talk about

         vigilante groups to fight the cartels - though that has been
         attempted before in Mexico and as we saw in the case of [link
         http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090714_mexico_la_familia_michoacana_expands_its_attacks
         ] La Familia MichoacA!n, which originally began as such a vigilante
         group, vigilantism frequently does not end well.

          

         This is where Anonymous may fit in. With Mexican citizens unable to
         rely on their government, the media or even armed vigilante groups
         for assistance, they may embrace Anonymous and come to view its form
         of cyber vigilantism as an outlet for their frustration -- and a
         safe way to pass oninformation pertaining to cartel activities.  If
         this occurs, we may see people not just in Veracruz and other Zeta
         controlled areas providing information to Anonymous, but citizens
         from all over the country.

          

         Also, in the same way that cartels leak information togovernments in
         an effort to use them as weapons against their rivals, we could also
         very well see groups such as the Sinaloa cartel provide information
         on Los Zetas to Anonymous. This of course would provide even more
         reason for Los Zetas to strike out against the activist collective.
         Eventually Anonymous could turn their sites on the other cartels. I
         wonder if the other cartels are thinking of Anonymous more as a
         potential threat/annoyance or a way to weaken the Zetas. Probably  a
         little bit of both at this point.

          

         If the Anonymous information campaign does indeed take off, and if
         Anonymous is attacked by Los Zetas, the activists could resort to
         releasing sensitive information to the U.S. Drug Enforcement
         Administration in an attempt to damage Los Zetas. This would be an
         incredible irony in light of the way Anonymous has viewed itself as
         an opponent of the U.S. government in cases like Wikileaks. 

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Matt Mawhinney
 ADP
 STRATFOR
 221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
 Austin, TX 78701
 T: 512.744.4300 A| M: 267.972.2609 A| F: 512.744.4334
 www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-02 01:51:45",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1033882_re-s-weekly-for-comment-placing-the-anonymous-vs-zeta.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1035283,"Re: [Fwd: WikiLeaks Prosecution Faces Hurdles]
","   This seems like a pretty good analysis.=A0 Certainly better than most of
   our own conjecture.= =A0

   \"Given that Assange has run hundreds of thousands of classified documents
   on his web site, each one that is properly classified could be included as
   a separate count of an indictment.\"
   - I look forward to Manning and Assange facing a bajillion-thousand counts
   of espionage.=A0

   On 12/2/10 11:05 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

 =93The espionage laws, believe it or not, do not make =
 an exception for
 reporters,=94 Martin says. However, as a matter of policy, reporters and
 publishers have never been charged under espionage laws.



 Fred Burton wrote:

 -------- Original Message --------
 Subject:        WikiLeaks Prosecution Faces Hurdles
 Date:   Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:00:46 -0500
 From:   KesslerRonald@gmail.com <KesslerRonald@gmail.com>
 Reply-To:       KesslerRonald@gmail.com
 To:     Ronald Kessler <kesslerronald@gmail.com>



     _WikiLeaks Prosecution Faces Hurdles_
     <h=
 ttp://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/WikiLeaks-Assange-espionage-EricHolder/=
 2010/12/02/id/378730>


     Newsmax


   WikiLeaks Prosecution Faces Hurdles

 Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:43 AM

 *By: Ronald Kessler*

 WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange can be prosecuted in this country for
 espionage, but he may never be brought back to the United States to face
 the charges.

 That=92s the judgment of John L. Martin, arguably the country=92s foremost
 expert on the subject.

 For 25 years, Martin was in charge of espionage prosecutions by the
 Justice Department. By the time he retired in August 1997, Martin had
 supervised the prosecution of 76 spies. Only one of the prosecutions
 resulted in an acquittal.

 Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has said the Justice Department has an
 =93active, ongoing criminal investigation=94 of Assange, who is in hiding,
 over his apparent release of classified documents.

 While Assange could be indicted, =93as long as he stays out of the United
 States, we don=92t have any jurisdiction over him,=94 Martin tells Newsmax.
 =93Moreover, because espionage is considered under international law to be
 a political offense, extradition treaties do not cover those accused of
 violating the espionage laws of any country.=94

 A major reason is that espionage laws could be applied to foreign
 intelligence officers who are under nonofficial cover and therefore have
 no diplomatic immunity from prosecution. In addition, a country such as
 Great Britain has an Official Secrets Act that would apply espionage
 laws to publishing material that other countries may not consider major
 breaches of security.

 As a result, countries are wary of supporting such laws by honoring
 extradition requests.

 =93You would never want to put your people in jeopardy by sending an
 intelligence officer without diplomatic immunity back to that country to
 face trial for violating its espionage laws,=94 says Martin, who was an
 FBI agent before becoming the country=92s chief spy prosecutor.

 So, while Assange could be charged by the United States, =93He would have
 to come into the United States voluntarily or by some ruse,=94 Martin says.

 However, aside from any treaties, Martin says a foreign country could
 decide to cooperate by putting him on a boat or airplane destined for
 this country under guard. That has happened in the past, Martin says.

 While Assange would argue that he is a journalist and therefore exempt
 from espionage laws, those laws actually have no exception for
 journalists, editors, or publishers, Martin says.

 =93The espionage laws, believe it or not, do not make an exception for
 reporters,=94 Martin says. However, as a matter of policy, reporters and
 publishers have never been charged under espionage laws.

 Martin says Assange could be charged under Section 793 of Title 18 of
 the U.S. Code, which prohibits unauthorized receipt, possession, or
 transmittal of classified documents, or under Section 798, which
 prohibits disclosure or publication of classified communications
 intelligence information.

 Given that Assange has run hundreds of thousands of classified documents
 on his web site, each one that is properly classified could be included
 as a separate count of an indictment. As a result, he could face a
 mounting prison term equivalent to a sentence of life in prison upon
 conviction, Martin says.

 The military arrested Private First Class Bradley Manning, suspected of
 being the source of the leaked documents, last May after WikiLeaks ran a
 video it had allegedly obtained from him. Taken by cameras on U.S.
 Apache helicopters, it shows several civilians, including two Reuters
 employees, being killed in a U.S. strike in Iraq in 2007.

 In an online chat, the Iraq-based intelligence analyst boasted about
 making available such classified material to the world.

 =93Since Manning did not transmit these documents to an agent of a foreign
 power, the more serious espionage offense that carries life imprisonment
 or death would not apply,=94 Martin says.

 However, =93The military will be looking to indict Manning on multiple
 counts of violating Section 793 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code by passing
 national security information to an unauthorized person,=94 Martin says.

 The government will have to establish that the documents it selects to
 be included in the prosecution =93related to the national defense, that
 they were protected information, and that the disclosure of these
 documents to unauthorized persons could damage national security,=94
 Martin says. =93You don't have to prove actual damage, only the
 possibility that it could cause damage.=94

 The fact that Manning will face a military court martial gives the
 government an advantage, Martin says.

 =93It=92s going to be a prosecution where classified documents are central
 to the government=92s case, and in that situation a military judge may
 close the courtroom to the public to take classified testimony or when
 the documents are introduced into evidence,=94 Martin says. =93You can=92t
 close a public trial in a civilian courtroom.=94

 Another advantage in a military case is that each time a soldier commits
 a violation, he can be charged with violating general orders, a separate
 crime.

 =93There's no such offense in civilian court,=94 Martin says.

 Since each properly classified document would represent a separate
 count, =93Manning would face the possibility of 100 years or more in
 prison,=94 Martin says. =93They could put him away for life if they do it
 right.=94


 *Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. View
 his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail.
 Go here now <http://newsmax.com/blogs/RonaldKessler/id-69&=
 gt;.*



 =20=20

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-02 18:10:41",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1035283_re-fwd-wikileaks-prosecution-faces-hurdles-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","burton@stratfor.com,analysts@stratfor.com,sf@feldhauslaw.com,tactical@stratfor.com",""
1035582,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   yes, marc called them a mob - and that seems accurate

   On 10/24/11 1:33 PM, scott stewart wrote:

     Good point. 
     In terrorist terms they are more like grassroots people than AQ core. 
     From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
     Reply-To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:11:05 -0500
     To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
     Somehow we have to stop referring to 'anonymous' as a monolith.  They
     are a bunch of different people that essentially get together in an
     online-form of a mob to carry out some action. I'm not sure how to do
     this in writing consistently.  But let's start with shit like 'people
     joining Anonymous chatrooms and claiming to be part of the movement' or
     something like that. 

     Comments in green below.  This is coming together nicely. 

     On 10/24/11 11:19 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of
       these in the US?
        What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
       I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
       whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
       because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
       revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of
       understanding of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is
       expendable to cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of
       coercion.

       Anonymous does not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
       cartels.  mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of
       el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication
       as a tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable
       intelligence, the government will use it against the cartels. That's a
       physical threat, if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify
       that Anonymous can not directly effect physical security. Any impact
       to the cartel in revealing information will be from actions of rival
       cartels or the GoM. They may release information on a given politician
       being linked to the cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the
       politician will feel an impact (Just because Anonymous says there is a
       link, doesn't make it true). It would be up to others to take action. 
       I think the way you have it worded in the above sentence is good. 
       Follow with a sentence explaining the rest of it, because readers will
       have the same question Karen did.  Something like 'Rather, the threat
       to cartels would come in what information anonymous could expose that
       is useful to their enemies'

       Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online
       activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to
       conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't know how
       much, but we do know they will have some points of operational
       vulnerability I have heard of cartels doing business online, but don't
       have specific examples which could be used in assessing their
       vulnerability online.

       by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired,
       arrested or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I
       should say, there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out
       politicians as colluding.
       On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

         Karen Hooper
         Latin America Analyst
         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
         c: 512.750.7234
         STRATFOR
         www.stratfor.com
         On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
         Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
         possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
         Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by people using
         the banner of Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on
         cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
         find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual
         being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico
         and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual
         posting flyers ['critical of cartels'?] in Veracruz as part of the
         Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation. [this is
         good and will be enough information to go with, though you'll need a
         quick explanation of what 'operation paperstorm' is.  Adding
         something in the explaining the flyers will work]

         Link: themeData
         Anonymous, a decentralized hacker collective  famous for distributed
         denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government and corporate
         websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
         statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video
         depicting a masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on
         October 10? With the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold
         threats towards the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as
         releasing identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
         journalists who collude with criminal cartels do they specify
         whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of these in the US?
          What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
         group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
         face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
         was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
         their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
         potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
         presents a unique threat towards TCOs [If TCO= transnational
         criminal organization, it's not really unique.  Many such
         organizations do their crimes online, and have been hacked in
         response--like the nigerian princess scams. I think you should just
         say it's a unique threat to DTOs] . We know of cartels lashing out
         at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels
         dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

         What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
              o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
         threat to Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a
         gun to the head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for
         the using publication as a tool to force government action. If you
         reveal actionable intelligence, the government will use it against
         the cartels. That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
              o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
         media
              o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out
         at cartels

         While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
         threat, if it had access to certain types of information:

                 -The threat is in the information they can expose that may
     be of use to any cartel enemies.  That could be to the government or
     other cartels or even local citizens (the last one may be a stretch, but
     i could imagine someone discrediting cartel members in the eyes of the
     public).

              o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims tocut possess
         identifiable information on cartel members 
              o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
         cartels [cut this part here, and make the point at the end of this
         section/paragraph]
              o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
         identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in
         the realm of possibilities for
                     Anonymous
                     o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
         illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels
         are known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We
         don't know how much, but we do know they will have some points of
         operational vulnerability

        -They claim to have information on those that collude with cartels 
     (use the stuff you have above].  Releasing such information could hurt
     cartels' support networks, but most of these people are also easily
     replaceable. 
                 -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents
     have access to, and doubt they have such information that provides any
     sort of existential threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 

         Most Anonymous hackers are likely far removed from the ultra-violent
         world of drug trafficking in Mexico, but it's quite possible that
         some of its members in this campaign are in Mexico and opposed to
         the violence [or something like that.  my limited understanding is
         there are still activist crusader-types in Mexico, yeah?  it seems
         very possible those with a bit of time or computer skills could have
         joined up with anonymous] . As a result, their understanding of
         cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous members in other
         countries may act with confidence when sitting in front of a
         computer, but this may blind them to any possible retribution. They
         may not even know the impact of any online assault of cartels.  [the
         part below and above is written rather normatively.  We need to take
         that out.  just state the facts]
              o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists
         will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these
         individuals are forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi
         drivers are often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
         halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals will not have
         a significant impact on cartel                   operations.
         Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
         Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any
         consequences from this. by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you
         mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and that happens all
         the time.
              o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels
         are willing to go protect their operations.
                 o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                 o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
         community before, coercing computer science majors into working for
         them.
                 o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
         discovering hackers within Mexico.
         need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply
         publishing tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the
         same camp as the bloggers  [yes, i think it needs to be clear that
         their damage will be similar to what bloggers or wikileaks can
         do--limited.  But maybe more a danger to themselves, since they are
         no longer challenging governments, but criminal organizations]

          

         On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

           Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but
           there are several issues to address and fix here.

           These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
           discussion:

                o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but
           we can't gloss over that fact
                o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
           between stealing bank records from government computers and
           overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
           information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
           kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
           talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
           politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
           going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
           killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
           operational details, because they acted as informants, because
           they exposed links with officials or because they somehow sullied
           the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of information is
           damaging to the cartels themselves?
                o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
           realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure
           of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for
           the technical ability by a very small number of its members to
           infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal information.
           Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on a network that
           is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
           information be found? Government databases? Once we know what kind
           of information is accessible, we can also know more about the
           consequences of dissemination.
                o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
           back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings
           done by people who may not understand the difference between an
           anon hacker and a blogger.

           On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

             wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

             -------- Original Message --------

              Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                 From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
             Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                   To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

             you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a
             lot more work

             You need to lay out:

             a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section
             is unclear
             b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
             therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
             c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
             d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone
             who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

             I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
             insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant
             levels of sophistication in their online presence, to include
             the use of cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
             is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
             business online, in a protected fashion.

             Karen Hooper
             Latin America Analyst
             o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
             c: 512.750.7234
             STRATFOR
             www.stratfor.com
             On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

             On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             Link: themeData

             Trigger

             Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
             Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed
             out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
             denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released
             depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a screen?
             exactly when?.  With the most recent video release, Anonymous
             makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels. Threats such as
             releasing identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
             politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels.
             The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped
             member otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
             between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
             unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly different
             operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
             Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
             believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
             not believe for a second that the cartels have no experience
             with hackers.

              

             In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned
             as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their
             demands of releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned
             right up front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening
             to hit back. Provide enough details so we understand who this
             guy is and why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous'
             claims of possessing revealing information on cartel members and
             operations are true, cartels will likely respond with violence
             against individuals revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you
             mean Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public
             disclosure of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force the
             GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i
             don't understand what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten
             Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
             against Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will
             continue their threats against any individual using online media
             WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about
             bloggers here. against the cartels.

              

             The Battle Space

             Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
             realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere
             of the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience
             geographical boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
             exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They
             are physical people tho live in the real world. They have names
             and addresses - although most of them are likely outside of MX.)
              Anonymous' power base consists of their technical capabilities
             in hacking. Any information connected to the Internet is
             vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's of
             individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population
             could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
             has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big
             company with a website that brings in revenue, but it does not
             really matter if you don't run operations on the web. Los Z
             don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are also far less
             dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

             Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power
             base consists of the perceived anonymity that its members
             believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating
             through the internet. This gives an opening for people
             disgruntled by anything and everything to practice general
             dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity + audience = troll.
             Only a fraction of the large web of people who identify
             themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
             capability. 

             The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been
             from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

             The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
             Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
             maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
             commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
             and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight.
             There is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar
             capacity.  Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue
             and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
             experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels are
             always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence.
             While battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law
             Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in
             the flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted media
             outlets. Murdering journalists and online bloggers in order to
             cover details of their operations. ok... but that's kind of a
             red herrng for this discussion. You need to focus on the
             possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
             have no cyber presence.

              

             Anonymous' Weapons

             Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
             criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
             combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly
             disseminating sensitive information on cartels and propagating
             anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced websites in
             Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous
             admitted in their video to cartels, they cannot fight with
             guns.  The significance of a targeted information operations
             campaign by technically elite individuals can not be overlooked
             should not be underestimated. Cartels view main stream media
             outlets and social media blogs as such a threat to their
             operations, that they have continued to target journalists and
             bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was placed
             with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the body of a
             blogger. The message threatened any users who denounce cartels
             on blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not
             really addressing the subheading

             As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet
             risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest
             Anonymous is capable of possessing information they threaten to
             release. By releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
             Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
             individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
             information is limited by what is available via the Internet.
             Government computers connected to the Internet should always be
             considered a possibility of an attack. However, as with the
             compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer
             networks, information available to Mexico's intelligence
             collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to
             say here? This isn't clear at all

              

             Cartel's Defense

                         A counter response to the video? by the cartels has
             yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped
             member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the
             threat posed by hackers so... how has there not been a counter
             response? also this undermines your statements above about how
             Anonymous is soley internet based, and underlines the
             vulnerabilities of associated members. How did they find teh
             Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well give you
             some indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
             Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the
             cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed
             for them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies
             dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and
             we have good intel indicating that) they are working on
             disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can
             operate in any region of the world. Personal information
             including locations is only available if a hacker chooses to
             divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
             figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous. Cartels
             are only capable of dealing with their online enemy, if they can
             physically reach out to them. Or start employing hackers of
             their own under their payroll? Stranger things have happened,
             Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                         Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
             Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the
             help of computer science majors through personal threats has
             been reported in the past where? What cartels? reported where?. 
             Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence and drug
             trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of technical
             experts to help combat any threat by computer hackers.  While
             identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it
             is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
             operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies such
             as the FBi, with far more technical experience and resources
             than cartels, struggle to find hackers through investigations.
             A) How do you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they
             kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are
             equally difficult to track down

                         In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
             likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with,
             brute force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT
             operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they
             wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
             communities will likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel
             members.  Narco banners and public display of violence will
             likely continue to be used to scare online media into submission
             i'm not really seeing the online media-international hacking
             group connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
             inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
             encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of cartel
             violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will remain to be
             seen until cartels are able to seek out and capture members of
             the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the collective bluff
             and simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can
             inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:39:58",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1035582_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1035690,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   if anonymous outs taxi cab drivers working with Zeta, they are dead.  that
   is both simple and devastating.  If they release email accounts of GOM
   folks, and there are cartel members in that address book that would be
   devastating.  I think our definitions of devastating are different.  I
   agree the ability of these folks to bring down governments is minimal, but
   I am willing to bet the next deep throat scenario will come via a hacker
   and information they are able to steal. 

   On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already

     2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  The question is if the attack is high
     priority enough.  Many people assume there is no attribution because
     there is no response, but I don't think that is accurate. 
     has NSA told you otherwise?  i am unclear, are you saying the entire
     darknet is mapped, or could be mapped, only it isn't because the NSA
     doesn't care or doens't share? 
     3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new laptop and
     start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack involves much more than
     a recently bought laptop.  In the same way there is an attack cycle for
     a terrorist attack or crime, there is one for a cyber attack.  A very
     simple attack may be as hard to trace as a nearly-random mugging in the
     dark in a neighborhood with much more serious crime and no CCTV cameras.
     so simple=low damage, and complicated = more damage?  if you hacked
     Calderon's blackberry and found out who his contacts were, and one of
     them was Chapo's sister, it would be simple and devastating.  A more
     complicated attack, however, involves pre-operational surveillance,
     developing exploits, developing programs and code, gaining access,
     exploiting that, and carrying out an attack.  And that takes time,
     giving more time for your exposure. Look at everything that went into
     Stuxnet as a great example, that couldn't be done with one person with a
     new laptop.  All of this activity provides activity and evidence which
     helps for attribution.  Of course it is always possible to develop an
     attack, just like any other operation, that even the best law
     enforcement and national intelligence agencies have trouble or cannot
     attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that it's very difficult for
     someone to successfully use Anonymous as a cover and have NSA, GHQ, MID,
     Aman, etc, be unable to attribute it.  They may not choose to cover it
     if it is small scale crime, however. 
     On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored cyber
       warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing that, since
       you can conduct a cyber attack without associating with a hacker group
       and still deny / cover actions on behalf of the State. An individual
       attacking US computer assets from China, may be working by himself or
       on behalf of the Chinese government, but unless the US has other intel
       on the Chinese government's cyber warfare activities in order to
       corroborate there is little capability to distinguish.

       It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
       operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets from
       SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual responsible for
       hacking State run servers. In the past, I have turned to SIGINT
       organizations for collections on computer related material, but this
       was due to the US being behind in cyber warfare, and not knowing where
       to assign responsibility. However, this has changed dramatically in
       the last couple of years.

       Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As an
       extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go to a
       Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the online
       activity to something revealing (accessing personal email accounts,
       tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop, etc..), and
       begin hacking government email accounts then never use the laptop
       again. Unless LEA could get an accurate description of my appearance
       from Starbuck's patrons or possible security cameras, I can not think
       of way to identify me.

       Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to these
       enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied to specific
       computer-related activities because of the difficulty in identifying
       individuals.

       I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown, would
       be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a common
       participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a State?
       Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that State agent
       organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter buddies, what signs
       could a LEA look for to distinguish?

       On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a bit)

         1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything actually
         harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't, but i'm very
         doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first real case where
         they could do some minor damage--to individual people, not not to an
         organization or anything that would come as a serious or strategic
         threat. 

         2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is actually
         pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as a cover, but
         that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could probably still be
         attributed if important enough to those agencies.  The recent attack
         on Sony actually brings this issue up- Whoever is calling themselves
         anonymous denies they did it.  And keep in mind how much they have
         claimed an publicized attacks in the past, even before they were
         carried out.  The attack on the Playstation Network was more
         sophisticated than anonymous' usual work (though potentially
         coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that distracted Sony's IT
         security).  But whoever did it, again, no real damage came of it. 
         Congress is holding hearings over data security, but this is no
         different than the OC groups stealing your credit card information. 
         LE will go after them, have some success, but the threat is not that
         large. 
         On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

           Link: themeData

           I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to have a
           broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no nothing, or
           almost nothing about what this group is and the threat it poses.
           Reviewing their list of attacks
           (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most of
           the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood of the
           internet . The interesting thing when it comes to their
           interactions with the cartels is the dubious role they play: at
           the same time they can be fighting crime by revealing cartel
           members/supporters, but they can also put lives in risk.

           However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
           Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can
           conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
           (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

           If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
           websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to know
           more about these guys. Who they are? What are they interested in?
           How they operate? Who they have targeted so far? How can I defend
           myself from them? In what countries are they active? Should I
           worry about them at all? Can I use them to achieve any particular
           goal?

           On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

             nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else
             can build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they
             pose to innocent people caught up in the terror that is Mexico. 
             By focusing on journalists or taxi drivers they show little
             understanding of the situation.  This has long term implications
             in not just Mexico.  They don't consider the consequences of
             their actions and they act without understanding the
             environment.  It was the same when they released information on
             the Sony Playstation network to protest Sony.  They hurt
             innocent people to prove a point. 

             On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

               Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
               possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
               Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by
               Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on cartels
               as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
               find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the
               individual being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites
               (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it
               may be an individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the
               Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

               Link: themeData
               Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
               distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government
               websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
               statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a
               video depicting a masked individual addressing Mexican drug
               cartels on October 10? With the most recent video release,
               Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels in
               Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers,
               police, politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal
               cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow
               kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. In the
               Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
               day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands
               of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The potential of
               conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
               presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels
               lashing out at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any
               reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers
               before. 

               What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                    o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
               threat to Mexican cartels.
                    o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit
               online media
                    o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to
               lash out at cartels

               While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose
               a threat
                    o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
               identifiable information on cartel members
                    o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could
               acquire on cartels
                    o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
               communications, identifiable information on cartels members
               have to be considered in the realm of possibilities for
                           Anonymous
                           o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to
               reveal illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

               Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
               ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
               result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
               limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting in
               front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
               retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online
               assault of cartels.
                    o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
               journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some
               of these individuals are forced to collude with cartels.    
                         Taxi drivers are often victims of extortion or
               coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the identity of these
               individuals will not have a significant impact on cartel    
                             operations. Politicans have been accused of
               working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before,
               however there has yet to be any consequences from this.
                    o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent
               cartels are willing to go protect their operations.
                       o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                       o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
               community before, coercing computer science majors into
               working for them.
                       o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
               discovering hackers within Mexico.

                

               On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                 Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea
                 but there are several issues to address and fix here.

                 These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
                 discussion:

                      o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's
                 fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                      o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                 difference between stealing bank records from government
                 computers and overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                      o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
                 information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of
                 info is kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You
                 seem to be talking about identities, whose? If anything it's
                 dirty cops, politicians and businessmen who need to worry
                 about what anon is going to be saying. Think about why the
                 bloggers and media were killed in previous instances. Was it
                 because they revealed operational details, because they
                 acted as informants, because they exposed links with
                 officials or because they somehow sullied the cartel's
                 reputation? In short, what kind of information is damaging
                 to the cartels themselves?
                      o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon
                 can realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes
                 a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence
                 capacity except for the technical ability by a very small
                 number of its members to infiltrate certain networks and
                 databases and steal information. Now what kind of
                 information would a cartel keep on a network that is
                 connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else
                 could information be found? Government databases? Once we
                 know what kind of information is accessible, we can also
                 know more about the consequences of dissemination.
                      o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to
                 trace back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of
                 killings done by people who may not understand the
                 difference between an anon hacker and a blogger.

                 On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                   wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                   -------- Original Message --------

                    Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                       Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                       From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                   Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                         To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                   you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to
                   need a lot more work

                   You need to lay out:

                   a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger
                   section is unclear
                   b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is,
                   and therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
                   c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
                   anything
                   d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill
                   anyone who breaches their systems or exposes their
                   connections

                   I also just want to point out that we have reasonable
                   reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some
                   significant levels of sophistication in their online
                   presence, to include the use of cyber currencies and
                   significant IT capacity. There is no reason to assume that
                   Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
                   protected fashion.

                   Karen Hooper
                   Latin America Analyst
                   o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                   c: 512.750.7234
                   STRATFOR
                   www.stratfor.com
                   On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                   On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                   Link: themeData

                   Trigger

                   Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
                   Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?,
                   lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
                   statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including
                   a video released depicting...? a person talking? a voice?
                   words on a screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent
                   video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                   criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of
                   Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
                   journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker
                   group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member
                   otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
                   between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
                   unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly
                   different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a
                   conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have little
                   experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no
                   experience with the cartels. I do not believe for a second
                   that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                    

                   In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                   mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                   reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped member
                   this should be mentioned right up front. Cartels have a
                   member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back. Provide
                   enough details so we understand who this guy is and
                   why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims
                   of possessing revealing information on cartel members and
                   operations are true, cartels will likely respond with
                   violence against individuals revealed as opposing cartel
                   members huh? you mean Anonymous members?. It also is
                   likely that public disclosure of GOM officials who collude
                   with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving the
                   Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this
                   means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
                   effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against
                   Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will
                   continue their threats against any individual using online
                   media WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking
                   about bloggers here. against the cartels.

                    

                   The Battle Space

                   Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two
                   separate realities from each other. Anonymous operates
                   solely in sphere of the computer networks. Anonymous does
                   not experience geographical boundaries. All personalities
                   within Anonymous, exist solely in cyber space.  (That is
                   not entirely true. They are physical people tho live in
                   the real world. They have names and addresses - although
                   most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power
                   base consists of their technical capabilities in hacking.
                   Any information connected to the Internet is vulnerable to
                   exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's of individual
                   cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population could
                   be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
                   has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or
                   a big company with a website that brings in revenue, but
                   it does not really matter if you don't run operations on
                   the web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They
                   are also far less dependent on the web than the
                   jihadists.)

                   Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's
                   power base consists of the perceived anonymity that its
                   members believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by
                   operating through the internet. This gives an opening for
                   people disgruntled by anything and everything to practice
                   general dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity +
                   audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web of
                   people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any
                   sort of serious IT capability. 

                   The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has
                   been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

                   The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in
                   US and Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always
                   looking to maximize profits and expand. But they are
                   bricks and mortar commerce. Yes..... but they use the
                   internet to launder money and issue commands. We know that
                   Sinaloa does that from insight. There is no reason to
                   assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity. 
                   Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue and
                   escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
                   experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels
                   are always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel
                   violence. While battling each other, cartels still face
                   arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to
                   avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money,
                   cartels have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists
                   and online bloggers in order to cover details of their
                   operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for this
                   discussion. You need to focus on the possible
                   vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
                   have no cyber presence.

                    

                   Anonymous' Weapons

                   Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions
                   against criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous'
                   only ability to combat cartels lay in information
                   operations, mainly disseminating sensitive information on
                   cartels and propagating anti-cartel statements via social
                   media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean so far and
                   that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
                   cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance of
                   a targeted information operations campaign by technically
                   elite individuals can not be overlooked should not be
                   underestimated. Cartels view main stream media outlets and
                   social media blogs as such a threat to their operations,
                   that they have continued to target journalists and
                   bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was
                   placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the
                   body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
                   denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive
                   here, and it's not really addressing the subheading

                   As stated earlier, any information connected to the
                   internet risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample
                   reason to suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing
                   information they threaten to release. By releasing
                   identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
                   cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
                   individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
                   information is limited by what is available via the
                   Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
                   should always be considered a possibility of an attack.
                   However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the US
                   governments computer networks, information available to
                   Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy to
                   acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This isn't
                   clear at all

                    

                   Cartel's Defense

                               A counter response to the video? by the
                   cartels has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous'
                   claims of a kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los
                   Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by hackers
                   so... how has there not been a counter response? also this
                   undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is
                   soley internet based, and underlines the vulnerabilities
                   of associated members. How did they find teh Anonymous
                   member? The answer to that could very well give you some
                   indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
                   Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web
                   , the cartels will face a number of challenges which
                   rarely are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG
                   has whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in
                   cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good intel
                   indicating that) they are working on disrupting the
                   cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in any
                   region of the world. Personal information including
                   locations is only available if a hacker chooses to divulge
                   it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
                   figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous.
                   Cartels are only capable of dealing with their online
                   enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
                   employing hackers of their own under their payroll?
                   Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                               Cartels have been known to coerce the services
                   of Mexican citizens with a technical background.
                   Recruiting the help of computer science majors through
                   personal threats has been reported in the past where? What
                   cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels operate in the
                   world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they will
                   likely need the assistance of technical experts to help
                   combat any threat by computer hackers.  While identifying
                   bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is
                   unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
                   operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies
                   such as the FBi, with far more technical experience and
                   resources than cartels, struggle to find hackers through
                   investigations. A) How do you know they are not in Mexico?
                   (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume
                   that not all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                               In order to compete with an online foe,
                   cartels will likely continue counter tactics they are most
                   familiar with, brute force. Cartels are still capable of
                   their HUMINT operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would
                   we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged
                   connections to hacker communities will likely be targeted
                   and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and
                   public display of violence will likely continue to be used
                   to scare online media into submission i'm not really
                   seeing the online media-international hacking group
                   connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
                   inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
                   encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
                   cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will
                   remain to be seen until cartels are able to seek out and
                   capture members of the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could
                   call the collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off
                   any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

         --

         Sean Noonan

         Tactical Analyst

         Office: +1 512-279-9479

         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

         www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 22:29:35",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1035690_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1037771,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   I disagree that Anonymous doesn't matter, but I agree the point of
   Tristan's piece is what makes this interesting.  innocent people could
   die, and that sucks.

   On 10/25/11 9:57 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     No, I didn't say that. 

     Sometimes we write about things--the most obvious and comparable example
     being Wikileaks-- that don't matter and explaining why they don't
     matter.  Another example being some of the grassroots terrorists who
     have been picked up in the US,  say Mohamad Osman Mohamad (sp?) for
     example.  He didn't matter, but we can provide a very good and cogent
     explanation of the threats he did and did not offer that few others do
     (or maybe no one else).

     But I don't think we have the expertise to truly deal with Anonymous and
     I don't care to give them more press for not doing much.  Tristan's
     piece on the other hand gets at a new and developing issue in what they
     are trying to do.  It's an anomaly i think that is worth covering.  It
     is probably the first time we will see violence as a result of their
     activities. 

     On 10/25/11 9:35 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

       So, until Anonymous doesn't become a national threat we shouldn't
       write about it?

       On 10/24/11 8:17 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         There's enough information on what's behind the Aurora attacks to
         respond and shut them down. 

         Change everything I said about SIGINT to CNO combined with
         all-source analysis and maybe human investigations.  Same point
         applies. With the low-level shit, it's usually not investigated.

         As far as I'm concerned an attack that matters is something
         seriously affects a country's capabilities relative to others.  (in
         this, intelligence can seriously affect those abilities, as it
         allows for them to be countered or become less advtantageous,
         relatively)
          

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: \"Tristan Reed\" <tristan.reed@stratfor.com>
         To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
         Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:33:59 PM
         Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels

         As far as Aurora, I haven't followed it closely. Did they ever
         identify the attackers or number of attackers? I thought the target
         set was the only thing that led people to believe the Chinese
         government was responsible.

         2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
         responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating
         cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case
         HUMINT is just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT
         capabilities does not indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers.
         NSA may have there own department for tracking hackers but it does
         not make it SIGINT.

         Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

         Wikipedia provides an indepth explanation on SIGINT . But in short,
         SIGINT is the capability in exploiting signals provided by
         communication devices, and what can be obtained by exploiting the
         signals. Combining computer network operations and SIGINT is
         innaccurate, because while SIGINT may be used with other
         intelligence disciplines in order to identify a hacker, it is not
         necessary and is no more related than any other intel discipline.
         SIGINT could help you identify a computer devices (not the operator)
         emitting a signal (wifi), and cryptanalysis, which is also separate
         from SIGINT but often used in conjunction, could help in providing
         methods to decrypt messages over a network, but SIGINT wouldn't
         obtain those messages.

         In order to exploit computer network operations, the operators
         involved are specifically trained in computer science disciplines
         and technologies tailored specifically for computer activity.

         NSA also is the primary agency for cryptanalysis. Because of
         technological demands of SIGINT and cryptanalysis, NSA has enormous
         resources in R&D, so I can see why the USG would move some CNO to
         NSA. But their SIGINT capabilities are not indicators of CNO
         capabilities.

         Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary
         labor for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are
         discussing operations on the scale of causing physical damage to
         extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of a cyber
         attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not mattered. 
         You chose the most prolific example of a cyber attack (which the
         whole operation consisted mainly outside of the cyber attack
         itself). Anything that falls short of this doesn't matter? Define
         what matters. None of anonymous' attacks have physically damaged
         secret Iranian nuclear facilities, but I think you are downplaying
         too much the significance of exposing corporate secrets, halting
         businesses' revenues, and embarrassing State actors by defacing
         their websites.

         On 10/24/11 5:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

           On 10/24/11 5:07 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

               1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already The USG
               arrested 10 Russian spies last year, are you willing to say
               foreign intel is not capable of conducting espionage
               undetected? No, of course not.  But I also would not argue
               that the SVR is so good to be immune to detection, as you are
               arguing with hackers.  I'm saying they are more detectable
               than you think.  There is no such thing as truly anonymous. 
               Everythign leaves a trail.  Will that trail in every instance
               lead to a single individual? no.  but it can lead to a place,
               an organization, and often, an individual. 

               2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
               responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to
               investigating cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to
               corroborate, in this case HUMINT is just as significant as
               SIGINT. A country's SIGINT capabilities does not indicate its
               capabilities in tracking hackers. NSA may have there own
               department for tracking hackers but it does not make it
               SIGINT.

               Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

               The question is if the attack is high priority enough.  Many
               people assume there is no attribution because there is no
               response, but I don't think that is accurate.  Many people say
               this, because no attribution is one reason for no response. 
               Yes, they do, and if they think that is the primary reason for
               lack of response, then I think they are wrong. 

               3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new
               laptop and start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack
               involves much more than a recently bought laptop.  In the same
               way there is an attack cycle for a terrorist attack or crime,
               there is one for a cyber attack.  A very simple attack may be
               as hard to trace as a nearly-random mugging in the dark in a
               neighborhood with much more serious crime and no CCTV
               cameras.  A more complicated attack, however, involves
               pre-operational surveillance, developing exploits, developing
               programs and code, gaining access, exploiting that, and
               carrying out an attack.  Discovering exploits and writing code
               can be done entirely offline, out of sight of law enforcement
               or intel agencies. Pre-operational surveillance and gaining
               access (the point of the exploit you write offline) would fit
               in my example. The point is, if you don't link your computer
               to identifiable information, you remain anonymous. Just like
               people use certain methods to build IEDs, people use certain
               mehtods to design programs and code for cyber attacks.  Over
               time, those methods become identifiable and more and more
               attributable. This is, for example, how AURORA is linked back
               to the Chinese.  and very specific Chinese, I may add. Being
               connected or unconnected doesn't matter, eventually you have
               to use what you develop, or copy from someone, and all of
               those things can be analyzed.   And that takes time, giving
               more time for your exposure Exposure comes from network
               activity with the target, a lot of the pre-operational phase
               of an attack can occur without network activity. Look at
               everything that went into Stuxnet as a great example, that
               couldn't be done with one person with a new laptop. Writing
               the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary labor
               for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are
               discussing operations on the scale of causing physical damage
               to extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of
               a cyber attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not
               mattered.   All of this activity provides activity and
               evidence which helps for attribution.  Of course it is always
               possible to develop an attack, just like any other operation,
               that even the best law enforcement and national intelligence
               agencies have trouble or cannot attribute.  That's fine.  My
               point is that it's very difficult for someone to successfully
               use Anonymous as a cover and have NSA, GHQ, MID, Aman, etc, be
               unable to attribute it.  How do you know if NSA or GHQ is
               effective in identifying hackers?I don't, but I'm confident
               they are far better than you are allowing for.    They may not
               choose to cover it if it is small scale crime, however. 
               On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                 I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state
                 sponsored cyber warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in
                 actually doing that, since you can conduct a cyber attack
                 without associating with a hacker group and still deny /
                 cover actions on behalf of the State. An individual
                 attacking US computer assets from China, may be working by
                 himself or on behalf of the Chinese government, but unless
                 the US has other intel on the Chinese government's cyber
                 warfare activities in order to corroborate there is little
                 capability to distinguish.

                 It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
                 operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT.
                 Assets from SIGINT would not directly help you track an
                 individual responsible for hacking State run servers. In the
                 past, I have turned to SIGINT organizations for collections
                 on computer related material, but this was due to the US
                 being behind in cyber warfare, and not knowing where to
                 assign responsibility. However, this has changed
                 dramatically in the last couple of years.

                 Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous.
                 As an extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in
                 cash, go to a Starbucks with free public wifi, and never
                 attribute the online activity to something revealing
                 (accessing personal email accounts, tweeting, entering
                 personal information to the laptop, etc..), and begin
                 hacking government email accounts then never use the laptop
                 again. Unless LEA could get an accurate description of my
                 appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible security
                 cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

                 Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer
                 to these enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities
                 tied to specific computer-related activities because of the
                 difficulty in identifying individuals.

                 I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be
                 blown, would be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But
                 what if a common participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was
                 working for a State? Anonymous has denounced state
                 governments before, if that State agent organizes an attack
                 amongst his IRC / Twitter buddies, what signs could a LEA
                 look for to distinguish?

                 On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

                   In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming
                   in a bit)

                   1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything
                   actually harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they
                   can't, but i'm very doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows
                   the first real case where they could do some minor
                   damage--to individual people, not not to an organization
                   or anything that would come as a serious or strategic
                   threat. 

                   2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is
                   actually pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous'
                   as a cover, but that would be pretty easy to bungle, and
                   could probably still be attributed if important enough to
                   those agencies.  The recent attack on Sony actually brings
                   this issue up- Whoever is calling themselves anonymous
                   denies they did it.  And keep in mind how much they have
                   claimed an publicized attacks in the past, even before
                   they were carried out.  The attack on the Playstation
                   Network was more sophisticated than anonymous' usual work
                   (though potentially coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS
                   attacks that distracted Sony's IT security).  But whoever
                   did it, again, no real damage came of it.  Congress is
                   holding hearings over data security, but this is no
                   different than the OC groups stealing your credit card
                   information.  LE will go after them, have some success,
                   but the threat is not that large. 
                   On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

                     I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity
                     to have a broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our
                     readers no nothing, or almost nothing about what this
                     group is and the threat it poses. Reviewing their list
                     of attacks
                     (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in
                     most of the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a
                     Robin Hood of the internet . The interesting thing when
                     it comes to their interactions with the cartels is the
                     dubious role they play: at the same time they can be
                     fighting crime by revealing cartel members/supporters,
                     but they can also put lives in risk.

                     However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed
                     by Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on
                     Earth, can conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is
                     worrisome.
                     (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

                     If I run an organization, if I am responsible for
                     government websites, or if I am just a internet user, I
                     would like to know more about these guys. Who they are?
                     What are they interested in? How they operate? Who they
                     have targeted so far? How can I defend myself from them?
                     In what countries are they active? Should I worry about
                     them at all? Can I use them to achieve any particular
                     goal?

                     On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                       nice.  i still think the central focus, and what
                       everything else can build off of, is that Anonymous
                       doesn't know the threat they pose to innocent people
                       caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing
                       on journalists or taxi drivers they show little
                       understanding of the situation.  This has long term
                       implications in not just Mexico.  They don't consider
                       the consequences of their actions and they act without
                       understanding the environment.  It was the same when
                       they released information on the Sony Playstation
                       network to protest Sony.  They hurt innocent people to
                       prove a point. 

                       On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                         Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of
                         discussing possible cartel responses, the focus is
                         on what type of threat Anonymous can pose to
                         cartels. The video released by Anonymous, threatens
                         revealing personal information on cartels as well as
                         states a member had been kidnapped. I could not find
                         any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the
                         individual being kidnapped. According to their
                         facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous
                         Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual
                         posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the Operation
                         Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

                         Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
                         distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on
                         government websites, lashed out at drug cartels via
                         the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
                         criminal cartels, including a video depicting a
                         masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on
                         October 10? With the most recent video release,
                         Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal
                         cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing
                         identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
                         journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The
                         hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow
                         kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. In the
                         Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                         mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                         reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped
                         member are not met. The potential of conflict
                         between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
                         presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of
                         cartels lashing out at online bloggers, but I
                         haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing with
                         any headaches from hackers before. 

                         What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                              o     Anonymous would not pose a direct
                         physical security threat to Mexican cartels.
                              o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to
                         exploit online media
                              o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in
                         Mexico to lash out at cartels

                         While not certain, there is a potential for
                         Anonymous to pose a threat
                              o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to
                         possess identifiable information on cartel members
                              o     It is unknown what information Anonymous
                         could acquire on cartels
                              o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
                         communications, identifiable information on cartels
                         members have to be considered in the realm of
                         possibilities for
                                     Anonymous
                                     o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's
                         ability to reveal illicit online activity (child
                         pornography rings)

                         Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in
                         the ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in
                         Mexico. As a result, their understanding of cartel
                         activities may be limited. Anonymous may act with
                         confidence when sitting in front of a computer, but
                         this may blind them to any possible retribution.
                         They may not even know the impact of any online
                         assault of cartels.
                              o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
                         journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not
                         understand some of these individuals are forced to
                         collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are
                         often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
                         halcones. Revealing the identity of these
                         individuals will not have a significant impact on
                         cartel                   operations. Politicans have
                         been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
                         Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to
                         be any consequences from this.
                              o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the
                         extent cartels are willing to go protect their
                         operations.
                                 o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                                 o    Cartels have reached out to the
                         computer science community before, coercing computer
                         science majors into working for them.
                                 o    This provides the cartels with the
                         possibility of discovering hackers within Mexico.

                          

                         On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                           Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like
                           the idea but there are several issues to address
                           and fix here.

                           These are the bullets of my main analytical
                           concern with the discussion:

                                o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why.
                           that's fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                                o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                           difference between stealing bank records from
                           government computers and overloading
                           www.loszetas.com main page.
                                o     There's no thought out process of what
                           sort of information could anon have on the
                           cartels. What kind of info is kept online and
                           accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
                           talking about identities, whose? If anything it's
                           dirty cops, politicians and businessmen who need
                           to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
                           Think about why the bloggers and media were killed
                           in previous instances. Was it because they
                           revealed operational details, because they acted
                           as informants, because they exposed links with
                           officials or because they somehow sullied the
                           cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
                           information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                                o     Once you identify this info - think
                           about if anon can realistically access it and
                           disseminate it so it causes a measure of damage.
                           Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except
                           for the technical ability by a very small number
                           of its members to infiltrate certain networks and
                           databases and steal information. Now what kind of
                           information would a cartel keep on a network that
                           is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)?
                           Where else could information be found? Government
                           databases? Once we know what kind of information
                           is accessible, we can also know more about the
                           consequences of dissemination.
                                o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel?
                           Sufficient to trace back attacks? If it's not,
                           there risks to be a lot of killings done by people
                           who may not understand the difference between an
                           anon hacker and a blogger.

                           On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                             wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                             -------- Original Message --------

                              Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs     
                                       Cartels                                
                                 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500        
                                 From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>     
                             Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>               
                                   To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>               

                             you've got some of the issues here, but this is
                             going to need a lot more work

                             You need to lay out:

                             a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your
                             trigger section is unclear
                             b) what our assessment of the online cartel
                             presence is, and therefore their vulnerabilities
                             and capabilities
                             c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high
                             security anything
                             d) how far the cartels would be willing to
                             travel to kill anyone who breaches their systems
                             or exposes their connections

                             I also just want to point out that we have
                             reasonable reliable insight that Sinaloa at the
                             very least has some significant levels of
                             sophistication in their online presence, to
                             include the use of cyber currencies and
                             significant IT capacity. There is no reason to
                             assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
                             business online, in a protected fashion.

                             Karen Hooper
                             Latin America Analyst
                             o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                             c: 512.750.7234
                             STRATFOR
                             www.stratfor.com
                             On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                             On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
","2011-10-25 17:35:41",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1037771_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1039924,"Re: [TACTICAL] Thought--Re: wikileaks cablegate -	disappearing	cables
","Agree

I've asked an old crony @ State if they still view the released material
as classified out of curiosity sake.


Nate Hughes wrote:
> also, as long as Google is readily making cached pages available, I
> think we're probably good.
>
> On 12/2/2010 2:03 PM, Fred Burton wrote:
>   
>> Agree
>>
>> I've asked Steve Feldhouse, our internal counsel for his advice and
>> guidance.
>>
>> If the FBI raids the place, I'm headed for the back door.
>>
>> Kevin Stech wrote:
>>     
>>> That’s reasonable
>>>
>>> *From:* Nate Hughes [mailto:hughes@stratfor.com]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:56
>>> *To:* Tactical
>>> *Cc:* Kevin Stech; 'Sean Noonan'
>>> *Subject:* Re: [TACTICAL] Thought--Re: wikileaks cablegate -
>>> disappearing cables
>>>
>>> look, technically, if it's classified, it's classified. Inappropriate
>>> handling of it continues to be a legal issue. This is why in their
>>> letters to wikileaks, the USG can insist not only that he not publish
>>> it, but that he somehow return all property (this shit was all clearly
>>> written before the digital age).
>>>
>>> But it's also absurd. And it is important for Kevin to be doing what
>>> he's doing, in the event that something that is important does leak
>>> out and is retracted. We need to be able to know what that was.
>>>
>>> Get a password on it, send a note to Fred, Stick and Rodger and carry
>>> on until instructed otherwise.
>>>
>>> On 12/2/2010 1:51 PM, Kevin Stech wrote:
>>>
>>> If there are real legal concerns I can throw a password on it
>>>
>>> *From:* Sean Noonan [mailto:sean.noonan@stratfor.com]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:46
>>> *To:* Kevin Stech; Tactical
>>> *Subject:* Thought--Re: wikileaks cablegate - disappearing cables
>>>
>>> Is the research website that hosts a copy of these cables public?
>>> Could we get in trouble for storing classified information?
>>>
>>> I don't mean to be nitpicky, and you guys may have already addressed
>>> this, but I wanted to double check just in case.
>>>
>>> It seems like no one will be charged with that--and sooo many other
>>> people are hosting it---but that doesn't make it legal either.
>>>
>>> On 12/2/10 12:37 PM, Kevin Stech wrote:
>>>
>>> Was it this one?
>>>  
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/05TELA
>>> VIV1580.html
>>>  
>>>  
>>>
>>>     -----Original Message-----
>>>
>>>     From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com <mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com>
>>>
>>> [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com] On
>>>
>>>     Behalf Of Fred Burton
>>>
>>>     Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:33
>>>
>>>     To: Analyst List
>>>
>>>     Subject: Re: wikileaks cablegate - disappearing cables
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>       New response from Wiki server on a Mossad cable/briefing I pulled up
>>>
>>>       on Day one..
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>       not found, overloaded or other issues ...
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>     We are sorry but we cannot answer your request at the moment.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>     This may be any kind of error.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>     Reva Bhalla wrote:
>>>
>>>         ive only gone through a couple of them,b ut these dont even seem that
>>>
>>>         sensitive to warrant a disappearing act On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:59 AM,
>>>
>>>         Karen Hooper wrote:
>>>
>>>          
>>>
>>>             Good eye, Kevin. Also, for each of them that i pulled up, Google has
>>>
>>>             a cached copy available to load.
>>>
>>>              
>>>
>>>              
>>>
>>>              
>>>
>>>             On 12/2/10 12:56 PM, Kevin Stech wrote:
>>>
>>>                 By continuously mirroring the Cablegate website, it lets me do
>>>
>>>                 certain things like monitor the timestamps of the cables very
>>>
>>>                 closely. One anomaly this has turned up is a number of disappearing
>>>
>>>                 cables. I haven't tested each one yet, but I believe the following
>>>
>>>                 cables to have been removed from the Cablegate website. Check for
>>>
>>>                 yourself.
>>>
>>>                  
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10ROME173.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10STATE17263.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10BAKU134.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10LONDON131.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/10/08RPODUBAI49.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/08/08MUSCAT565.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/12/08STATE134490.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/06/09ASHGABAT757.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/08/09KUWAIT760.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09RPODUBAI177.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/09ANKARA1594.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/09BAGHDAD2992.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/01/09RIYADH181.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09BAGHDAD3195.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09DOHA728.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2006/04/06ABUDHABI1401.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/05TELAVIV1580.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/07STATE152317.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/07BAGHDAD3895.html
>>>
>>>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/01/07TELAVIV64.html
>>>
>>>                  
>>>
>>>                 You can view the backups of the original cables here.
>>>
>>>                  
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/
>>>
>>>                 10ROME173.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/
>>>
>>>                 10STATE17263.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/
>>>
>>>                 10BAKU134.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/
>>>
>>>                 10LONDON131.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/10/
>>>
>>>                 08RPODUBAI49.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/08/
>>>
>>>                 08MUSCAT565.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/12/
>>>
>>>                 08STATE134490.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/06/
>>>
>>>                 09ASHGABAT757.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/08/
>>>
>>>                 09KUWAIT760.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/
>>>
>>>                 09RPODUBAI177.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/
>>>
>>>                 09ANKARA1594.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/
>>>
>>>                 09BAGHDAD2992.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/01/
>>>
>>>                 09RIYADH181.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/
>>>
>>>                 09BAGHDAD3195.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/
>>>
>>>                 09DOHA728.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2006/04/
>>>
>>>                 06ABUDHABI1401.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/
>>>
>>>                 05TELAVIV1580.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/
>>>
>>>                 07STATE152317.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/
>>>
>>>                 07BAGHDAD3895.html
>>>
>>>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/01/
>>>
>>>                 07TELAVIV64.html
>>>
>>>                  
>>>
>>>                 Kevin Stech
>>>
>>>                 Research Director | STRATFOR
>>>
>>>                 kevin.stech@stratfor.com <mailto:kevin.stech@stratfor.com> <mailto:kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
>>>
>>>                 +1 (512) 744-4086
>>>
>>>                  
>>>
>>>          
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>>> Sean Noonan
>>>
>>> Tactical Analyst
>>>
>>> Office: +1 512-279-9479
>>>
>>> Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>>
>>> Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>>
>>> www.stratfor.com <http://www.stratfor.com>
>>>
>>>       
","2010-12-02 20:17:17",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1039924_re-tactical-thought-re-wikileaks-cablegate-disappearing.html","burton@stratfor.com","","hughes@stratfor.com,kevin.stech@stratfor.com,tactical@stratfor.com",""
1044308,"Re: wikileaks cablegate - disappearing cables
","The Foggy-Bottom Bow-Ties have their panties in a knot over a specific
Iraq cable outed yesterday.  Not sure which one.  May be yanked. 

Reva Bhalla wrote:
> ive only gone through a couple of them,b ut these dont even seem that
> sensitive to warrant a disappearing act
> On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:
>
>> Good eye, Kevin. Also, for each of them that i pulled up, Google has
>> a cached copy available to load. 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/2/10 12:56 PM, Kevin Stech wrote:
>>> By continuously mirroring the Cablegate website, it lets me do
>>> certain things like monitor the timestamps of the cables very
>>> closely. One anomaly this has turned up is a number of disappearing
>>> cables. I haven’t tested each one yet, but I believe the following
>>> cables to have been removed from the Cablegate website. Check for
>>> yourself.
>>>  
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10ROME173.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10STATE17263.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10BAKU134.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10LONDON131.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/10/08RPODUBAI49.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/08/08MUSCAT565.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/12/08STATE134490.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/06/09ASHGABAT757.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/08/09KUWAIT760.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09RPODUBAI177.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/09ANKARA1594.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/09BAGHDAD2992.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/01/09RIYADH181.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09BAGHDAD3195.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09DOHA728.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2006/04/06ABUDHABI1401.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/05TELAVIV1580.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/07STATE152317.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/07BAGHDAD3895.html
>>> http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/01/07TELAVIV64.html
>>>  
>>> You can view the backups of the original cables here.
>>>  
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10ROME173.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10STATE17263.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10BAKU134.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10LONDON131.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/10/08RPODUBAI49.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/08/08MUSCAT565.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/12/08STATE134490.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/06/09ASHGABAT757.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/08/09KUWAIT760.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09RPODUBAI177.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/09ANKARA1594.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/09BAGHDAD2992.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/01/09RIYADH181.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09BAGHDAD3195.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09DOHA728.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2006/04/06ABUDHABI1401.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/05TELAVIV1580.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/07STATE152317.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/07BAGHDAD3895.html
>>> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/01/07TELAVIV64.html
>>>  
>>> Kevin Stech
>>> Research Director | STRATFOR
>>> kevin.stech@stratfor.com <mailto:kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
>>> +1 (512) 744-4086
>>>  
>
","2010-12-02 19:26:35",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1044308_re-wikileaks-cablegate-disappearing-cables-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1044330,"RE: [TACTICAL] Thought--Re: wikileaks cablegate - disappearing	cables
","   That's reasonable

    

   From: Nate Hughes [mailto:hughes@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:56
   To: Tactical
   Cc: Kevin Stech; 'Sean Noonan'
   Subject: Re: [TACTICAL] Thought--Re: wikileaks cablegate - disappearing
   cables

    

   look, technically, if it's classified, it's classified. Inappropriate
   handling of it continues to be a legal issue. This is why in their letters
   to wikileaks, the USG can insist not only that he not publish it, but that
   he somehow return all property (this shit was all clearly written before
   the digital age).

   But it's also absurd. And it is important for Kevin to be doing what he's
   doing, in the event that something that is important does leak out and is
   retracted. We need to be able to know what that was.

   Get a password on it, send a note to Fred, Stick and Rodger and carry on
   until instructed otherwise.

   On 12/2/2010 1:51 PM, Kevin Stech wrote:

   If there are real legal concerns I can throw a password on it

    

   From: Sean Noonan [mailto:sean.noonan@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:46
   To: Kevin Stech; Tactical
   Subject: Thought--Re: wikileaks cablegate - disappearing cables

    

   Is the research website that hosts a copy of these cables public?  Could
   we get in trouble for storing classified information?

   I don't mean to be nitpicky, and you guys may have already addressed this,
   but I wanted to double check just in case. 

   It seems like no one will be charged with that--and sooo many other people
   are hosting it---but that doesn't make it legal either. 

   On 12/2/10 12:37 PM, Kevin Stech wrote:

 Was it this one?

  

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/05TELA

 VIV1580.html

  

  

 -----Original Message-----

 From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com

 [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com] On

 Behalf Of Fred Burton

 Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:33

 To: Analyst List

 Subject: Re: wikileaks cablegate - disappearing cables

  

  

   New response from Wiki server on a Mossad cable/briefing I pulled up

   on Day one..

  

  

  

   not found, overloaded or other issues ...

  

 We are sorry but we cannot answer your request at the moment.

  

 This may be any kind of error.

  

  

  

 Reva Bhalla wrote:

 ive only gone through a couple of them,b ut these dont even seem that

 sensitive to warrant a disappearing act On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:59 AM,

 Karen Hooper wrote:

  

 Good eye, Kevin. Also, for each of them that i pulled up, Google has

 a cached copy available to load.

  

  

  

 On 12/2/10 12:56 PM, Kevin Stech wrote:

 By continuously mirroring the Cablegate website, it lets me do

 certain things like monitor the timestamps of the cables very

 closely. One anomaly this has turned up is a number of disappearing

 cables. I haven't tested each one yet, but I believe the following

 cables to have been removed from the Cablegate website. Check for

 yourself.

  

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10ROME173.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10STATE17263.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10BAKU134.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10LONDON131.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/10/08RPODUBAI49.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/08/08MUSCAT565.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/12/08STATE134490.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/06/09ASHGABAT757.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/08/09KUWAIT760.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09RPODUBAI177.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/09ANKARA1594.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/09BAGHDAD2992.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/01/09RIYADH181.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09BAGHDAD3195.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09DOHA728.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2006/04/06ABUDHABI1401.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/05TELAVIV1580.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/07STATE152317.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/07BAGHDAD3895.html

 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/01/07TELAVIV64.html

  

 You can view the backups of the original cables here.

  

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/

 10ROME173.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/

 10STATE17263.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/

 10BAKU134.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/

 10LONDON131.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/10/

 08RPODUBAI49.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/08/

 08MUSCAT565.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/12/

 08STATE134490.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/06/

 09ASHGABAT757.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/08/

 09KUWAIT760.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/

 09RPODUBAI177.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/

 09ANKARA1594.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/

 09BAGHDAD2992.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/01/

 09RIYADH181.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/

 09BAGHDAD3195.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/

 09DOHA728.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2006/04/

 06ABUDHABI1401.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/

 05TELAVIV1580.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/

 07STATE152317.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/

 07BAGHDAD3895.html

 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/01/

 07TELAVIV64.html

  

 Kevin Stech

 Research Director | STRATFOR

 kevin.stech@stratfor.com <mailto:kevin.stech@stratfor.com>

 +1 (512) 744-4086

  

  

    

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-02 19:56:53",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1044330_re-tactical-thought-re-wikileaks-cablegate-disappearing.html","","","hughes@stratfor.com,sean.noonan@stratfor.com,tactical@stratfor.com",""
1044386,"[Fwd: Re: [TACTICAL] Thought--Re: wikileaks cablegate - disappearingcables]
","FYI

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [TACTICAL] Thought--Re: wikileaks cablegate -
disappearingcables
Date: 	Thu, 2 Dec 2010 19:44:06 +0000
From: 	Stephen M. Feldhaus <sf@feldhauslaw.com>
Reply-To: 	sf@feldhauslaw.com
To: 	Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>, sean.noonan@stratfor.com
CC: 	Mr. George Friedman <gfriedman@stratfor.com>
References:
<09c801cb924a$41645240$c42cf6c0$@stratfor.com><4CF7DE6C.5050603@stratfor.com><91BAC3A3-6793-4E91-BA61-00ABB532EB67@stratfor.com><4CF7E66A.6010908@stratfor.com><0a9a01cb9250$00d68990$02839cb0$@stratfor.com><4CF7E972.8000702@stratfor.com><0ab301cb9251$e7be8460$b73b8d20$@stratfor.com><4CF7EB34.7030101@stratfor.com>




Just got out of a meeting and saw this. We definitely should not be making these available to the public, or to our subscribers. I am not worried about our maintaining a database of the documents for our own use. 

Best,

Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:53:40 
To: Tactical<tactical@stratfor.com>
Cc: 'Sean Noonan'<sean.noonan@stratfor.com>; Feldhaus, Stephen<sf@feldhauslaw.com>
Subject: Re: [TACTICAL] Thought--Re: wikileaks cablegate - disappearing
	cables

Steve - Thoughts?  Thanks

Kevin Stech wrote:
>
> If there are real legal concerns I can throw a password on it
>
>  
>
> *From:* Sean Noonan [mailto:sean.noonan@stratfor.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:46
> *To:* Kevin Stech; Tactical
> *Subject:* Thought--Re: wikileaks cablegate - disappearing cables
>
>  
>
> Is the research website that hosts a copy of these cables public? 
> Could we get in trouble for storing classified information?
>
> I don't mean to be nitpicky, and you guys may have already addressed
> this, but I wanted to double check just in case. 
>
> It seems like no one will be charged with that--and sooo many other
> people are hosting it---but that doesn't make it legal either. 
>
> On 12/2/10 12:37 PM, Kevin Stech wrote:
>
> Was it this one?
>  
> https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/05TELA
> VIV1580.html
>  
>  
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>
>     From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com <mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com>
>
> [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com] On
>
>     Behalf Of Fred Burton
>
>     Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:33
>
>     To: Analyst List
>
>     Subject: Re: wikileaks cablegate - disappearing cables
>
>      
>
>      
>
>       New response from Wiki server on a Mossad cable/briefing I pulled up
>
>       on Day one..
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>       not found, overloaded or other issues ...
>
>      
>
>     We are sorry but we cannot answer your request at the moment.
>
>      
>
>     This may be any kind of error.
>
>      
>
>      
>
>      
>
>     Reva Bhalla wrote:
>
>         ive only gone through a couple of them,b ut these dont even seem that
>
>         sensitive to warrant a disappearing act On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:59 AM,
>
>         Karen Hooper wrote:
>
>          
>
>             Good eye, Kevin. Also, for each of them that i pulled up, Google has
>
>             a cached copy available to load.
>
>              
>
>              
>
>              
>
>             On 12/2/10 12:56 PM, Kevin Stech wrote:
>
>                 By continuously mirroring the Cablegate website, it lets me do
>
>                 certain things like monitor the timestamps of the cables very
>
>                 closely. One anomaly this has turned up is a number of disappearing
>
>                 cables. I haven't tested each one yet, but I believe the following
>
>                 cables to have been removed from the Cablegate website. Check for
>
>                 yourself.
>
>                  
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10ROME173.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10STATE17263.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/10BAKU134.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/10LONDON131.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/10/08RPODUBAI49.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/08/08MUSCAT565.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/12/08STATE134490.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/06/09ASHGABAT757.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/08/09KUWAIT760.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/09RPODUBAI177.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/09ANKARA1594.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/09BAGHDAD2992.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/01/09RIYADH181.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09BAGHDAD3195.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/09DOHA728.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2006/04/06ABUDHABI1401.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/05TELAVIV1580.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/07STATE152317.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/07BAGHDAD3895.html
>
>                 http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/01/07TELAVIV64.html
>
>                  
>
>                 You can view the backups of the original cables here.
>
>                  
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/
>
>                 10ROME173.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/
>
>                 10STATE17263.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/02/
>
>                 10BAKU134.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2010/01/
>
>                 10LONDON131.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/10/
>
>                 08RPODUBAI49.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/08/
>
>                 08MUSCAT565.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2008/12/
>
>                 08STATE134490.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/06/
>
>                 09ASHGABAT757.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/08/
>
>                 09KUWAIT760.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/04/
>
>                 09RPODUBAI177.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/
>
>                 09ANKARA1594.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/11/
>
>                 09BAGHDAD2992.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/01/
>
>                 09RIYADH181.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/
>
>                 09BAGHDAD3195.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/12/
>
>                 09DOHA728.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2006/04/
>
>                 06ABUDHABI1401.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2005/03/
>
>                 05TELAVIV1580.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/
>
>                 07STATE152317.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/11/
>
>                 07BAGHDAD3895.html
>
>                 https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2007/01/
>
>                 07TELAVIV64.html
>
>                  
>
>                 Kevin Stech
>
>                 Research Director | STRATFOR
>
>                 kevin.stech@stratfor.com <mailto:kevin.stech@stratfor.com> <mailto:kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
>
>                 +1 (512) 744-4086
>
>                  
>
>          
>
>  
>
> -- 
>
> Sean Noonan
>
> Tactical Analyst
>
> Office: +1 512-279-9479
>
> Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>
> Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>
> www.stratfor.com <http://www.stratfor.com>
>
","2010-12-02 22:49:44",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1044386_-fwd-re-tactical-thought-re-wikileaks-cablegate.html","burton@stratfor.com","","rbaker@stratfor.com,kevin.stech@stratfor.com",""
1050076,"DISCUSSION - US focus on Georgia and Ukraine ... 
","   INSIGHT:
    
   This is not Vershbow's only move. He will be tossing himself back and
   forth for the next few months between Georgia and Ukraine. He will be in
   Georgia October 19-20 and then in Ukraine in early November and Georgia in
   late November and then back again to both in December.
    
   In Georgia, Vershbow will be coordinating an expansion of US training of
   Georgian troops. It will most likely not just be defensive anymore.
    
   In Ukraine, yes, there was the BMD announcement that Kiev did not even
   know about. But the bigger concern is that under certain Western nudging,
   Ukraine will resume weapon transfers to Georgia.
    
   Vershbow's primary focus will now be on Georgia and Ukraine, but we all
   know that there is an expiration date on the Ukraine part of this
   equation.
    
   LG discussion....
    
   What the source means by the expiration date is that Vershbow can actually
   get some cool things done in Ukraine via Yushchenko. The rest of the
   political sphere - Timo, Yanu, parliament, cabinet, etc-all won't work
   with Vershbow. But Yushchenko can.
    
   Though Yushchenko has 2% approval rating, his party is split into half a
   dozen parts and he LITERALLY has no friends.... He does still control 3
   key sectors in Ukraine as President: SBU, military industrial and
   military. Yushchenko can make decisions in those sectors without having to
   consult with anyone else for the most part.
    
   So Vershbow and Yushchenko could  in theory pull off some incredible shit
   in Ukraine and Georgia...... but there is a time limit since Yushchenko
   will be out of office in 3 months.....
    
   The clock is ticking.  
   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2009-10-09 17:52:47",1,"2012-03-02 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1050076_discussion-us-focus-on-georgia-and-ukraine-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1050427,"Re: Assange is off the hook...
","   It is possible to revoke citizenship on the grounds of being a dickhead
   except in Australia, where all of Queensland and a good part of South
   Australia, along with all of Sydney Uni would lose their passports.

   On 12/05/10 22:42 , Chris Farnham wrote:

     Is it possible to revoke some one's citizenship on the grounds of them
     being a total dickhead? 
     I don't care about the other leaks but the ones he has made that
     potentially damage Australian interests upset me. 
     If I thought I could switch this dickhead off without getting done I
     don't think I'd have too much of a problem.
     BTW, close family friend in Sweden who knows the girl that is pressing
     charges tells me that there is absolutely nothing behind it other than
     prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves. My friend
     speaks rather disparagingly about the girl who is claiming molestation.
     I also think the whole rape thing is incorrect for if I remember
     correctly rape was never the charge. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:23:03 PM
     Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

     What a douche.

     And I just want to be clear here... I have no problem with the leaks. I
     think they're great. And I think it may be good on some level to have
     stuff like this come out once in a while. What I can't stand is A) his
     ego trip and B) his clear anti-Americanism. Take the time to read the
     intro to Cablegate when you get the chance. This guy hates America more
     than OBL.

     What I love, however, is how nobody in the U.S. is mad about the cables.
     Hell, I have a better opinion of State Department diplomats now than I
     did before the cables. They actually said a few smart things here and
     there. I actually gave them a tip of my hat.

     I want to see him try to take on the Russians. He'd be going bald in an
     Iceland hospital within days.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:11:39 PM
     Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

     should we change our Stratfor motto now?
     Predictive, insightful intelligence...in a post-Cablegate world.
     On Dec 5, 2010, at 10:05 PM, Marko Papic wrote:

       This guy needs to take pills for his ego:

      He suggested, not for the first time, that he believes his document
      service has had a profound effect on world history: \"I believe geopolitics
      will be separated into pre- and post-Cablegate phases.\"

       Also, I have a question about this part (this is Assange's lawyer
       saying how Wikileaks would release full versions of all files --
       including names of spies, etc. -- if harmed):

      WikiLeaks, Mr. Stephens said, has \"been subject to cyberattacks and
      censorship around the world and they need to protect themselves ... This
      is what they believe to be a thermonuclear device in the information age.\"

       Let's say the following scenario happens. Assange is arrested and
       extradicted to Sweden to face rape charges. Wikileaks releases the
       password to the insurance files. Would he not then be directly
       endangering U.S. and other country intelligence professionals? Would
       it not then be possible to prosecute him for espionage? 

       -- 
       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
       Marko Papic
       Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
       STRATFOR
       700 Lavaca Street - 900
       Austin, Texas
       78701 USA
       P: + 1-512-744-4094
       marko.papic@stratfor.com

     --
     Marko Papic

     STRATFOR Analyst
     C: + 1-512-905-3091
     marko.papic@stratfor.com

     --

     Chris Farnham
     Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
     China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
     Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
     www.stratfor.com

   --

   George Friedman

   Founder and CEO

   Stratfor

   700 Lavaca Street

   Suite 900

   Austin, Texas 78701

   Phone  512-744-4319

   Fax  512-744-4334
","2010-12-06 05:53:55",1,"2012-02-28 13:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1050427_re-assange-is-off-the-hook-.html","gfriedman@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1051088,"FBI SAIC comment on WikiLeaks (internal use only pls) 
","
Hey Fred - Just got back into town to reply to your question. 

Looks pretty bad - then again, nobody knew better than us how those
State Department people write - so nobody should be surprised at some of it.
","2010-11-29 16:23:54",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1051088_fbi-saic-comment-on-wikileaks-internal-use-only-pls-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","secure@stratfor.com",""
1051844,"Re: Assange is off the hook...
","   And yeah, his theoretical argument -- one he bases everything off of -- is
   that if money is being spent to keep something secret, then it is evil.

   I don't think I've heard a more self-righteous, sweeping statement than
   that.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 11:47:05 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   Yeah but my point was that the common folk are not outraged except at
   Assange. He wanted people to be outraged at the government. Nobody is, in
   fact most people think the diplomats are doing their job. That's a change
   considering what low opinion most people have of diplomats.

   And as for my comment about wikileaks, I was being far more philosophical
   than the question of whether it is illegal or not. From time to time, you
   got to leak some stuff... it's just the way it is. It's good for the
   country. Doesn't feel nice, but it's good. Like jogging.

   But my overall point here is that Assange is just an anti-American prick
   who things he is going to leak some stuff that leaves the American people
   outraged. What an idiot. As Stewart said the other night, this is the
   country that sold weapons to Iran so that we can fund right-wing
   guerrillas in Central America. And this idiot thought we would be outraged
   by someone calling Merkel \"risk-averse\".

   He is a fucking idiot.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 11:42:17 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   Queensland= Aussie Texas.  Y'all have an attitude that Alabamans don't. 

   Last I saw Assange was charged with sexual assault, not rape.  That's
   different in the US, obviously, but no idea about Sweden. 

   And Marko, I beg to differ.  The leaks are wrong.  Are they seriously
   damaging? No, but that doesn't make it OK.  Serious laws were violated
   here, and the only reason they have some freedom of movement is because
   Wikileaks (presumably) is not state-sponsored and claim to be some sort of
   journalism.  But that is BS, these documents were stolen and published
   illegally.  We can go into the whole argument of overclassification- and
   be right to say that most of this stuff should no longer be classified. 
   That does not change the fact that the documents were classified.  Some
   sort of civil disobedience is not going to change the USG's culture of
   secrecy.  That idea by Assange is just ludicrous.  This is just an
   NGO-version of espionage and everyone involved should be arrested and
   tried accordingly (and disrupted if we can't get them to court).

   What Matt said about a large number of the American right being pretty
   pissed off about these is also true.  Assange has been called a terrorist
   many times, I think Palin wanted to hunt him down.   

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Meredith Friedman\" <mfriedman@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:21:43 AM
   Subject: RE: Assange is off the hook...

   The Landsdowne Hotel and the pub crawls...but I totally agree with your
   view on Queensland!!

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
   On Behalf Of Chris Farnham
   Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 11:17 PM
   To: Analyst List
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...
   Oh the teaching is still first rate and turned me in to the intellectual
   Adonis that I am. Was just that the majority of the company there sucked.
   Nestled between Glebe and Newtown since their gentrification hasn't
   helped, I don't think. Thank god for the Landsdowne Hotel!!

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Meredith Friedman\" <mfriedman@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 1:09:42 PM
   Subject: RE: Assange is off the hook...

   I am a proud alumnus of Sydney Uni thank you very much. But it was much
   better back then....

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
   On Behalf Of Chris Farnham
   Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 11:07 PM
   To: Analyst List
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...
   If you think you're going to get any argument out of me on Usyd you're
   going to be disappointed. 
   The place was full of left wing socialist wankers or college boy, Aviator
   wearing, popped collar rich kids. 
   Going to hazard a guess that Assange may also have studied there as well.
   Queensland is Australia's version of Alabama, only with better beaches. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"George Friedman\" <gfriedman@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:53:55 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   It is possible to revoke citizenship on the grounds of being a dickhead
   except in Australia, where all of Queensland and a good part of South
   Australia, along with all of Sydney Uni would lose their passports.

   On 12/05/10 22:42 , Chris Farnham wrote:

     Is it possible to revoke some one's citizenship on the grounds of them
     being a total dickhead? 
     I don't care about the other leaks but the ones he has made that
     potentially damage Australian interests upset me. 
     If I thought I could switch this dickhead off without getting done I
     don't think I'd have too much of a problem.
     BTW, close family friend in Sweden who knows the girl that is pressing
     charges tells me that there is absolutely nothing behind it other than
     prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves. My friend
     speaks rather disparagingly about the girl who is claiming molestation.
     I also think the whole rape thing is incorrect for if I remember
     correctly rape was never the charge. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:23:03 PM
     Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

     What a douche.

     And I just want to be clear here... I have no problem with the leaks. I
     think they're great. And I think it may be good on some level to have
     stuff like this come out once in a while. What I can't stand is A) his
     ego trip and B) his clear anti-Americanism. Take the time to read the
     intro to Cablegate when you get the chance. This guy hates America more
     than OBL.

     What I love, however, is how nobody in the U.S. is mad about the cables.
     Hell, I have a better opinion of State Department diplomats now than I
     did before the cables. They actually said a few smart things here and
     there. I actually gave them a tip of my hat.

     I want to see him try to take on the Russians. He'd be going bald in an
     Iceland hospital within days.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:11:39 PM
     Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

     should we change our Stratfor motto now?
     Predictive, insightful intelligence...in a post-Cablegate world.
     On Dec 5, 2010, at 10:05 PM, Marko Papic wrote:

       This guy needs to take pills for his ego:

      He suggested, not for the first time, that he believes his document
      service has had a profound effect on world history: a**I believe
      geopolitics will be separated into pre- and post-Cablegate phases.a**

       Also, I have a question about this part (this is Assange's lawyer
       saying how Wikileaks would release full versions of all files --
       including names of spies, etc. -- if harmed):

      WikiLeaks, Mr. Stephens said, has a**been subject to cyberattacks and
      censorship around the world and they need to protect themselves ... This
      is what they believe to be a thermonuclear device in the information
      age.a**

       Let's say the following scenario happens. Assange is arrested and
       extradicted to Sweden to face rape charges. Wikileaks releases the
       password to the insurance files. Would he not then be directly
       endangering U.S. and other country intelligence professionals? Would
       it not then be possible to prosecute him for espionage? 

       -- 
       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
       Marko Papic
       Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
       STRATFOR
       700 Lavaca Street - 900
       Austin, Texas
       78701 USA
       P: + 1-512-744-4094
       marko.papic@stratfor.com

     --
     Marko Papic

     STRATFOR Analyst
     C: + 1-512-905-3091
     marko.papic@stratfor.com

     --

     Chris Farnham
     Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
     China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
     Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
     www.stratfor.com

   --

   George Friedman

   Founder and CEO

   Stratfor

   700 Lavaca Street

   Suite 900

   Austin, Texas 78701

   Phone  512-744-4319

   Fax  512-744-4334

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --
   Sean Noonan
   Tactical Analyst
   Office: +1 512-279-9479
   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   www.stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-06 06:49:07",1,"2012-02-29 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1051844_re-assange-is-off-the-hook-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1055466,"Re: Assange is off the hook...
","   you are right, it's a \"sex by surprise charge\"!

   Sort of like...

   nevermind

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Chris Farnham\" <chris.farnham@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 11:01:04 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   If it really matters I can look in to it, but from what I am hearing that
   is not the case. 
   That's not to say that my friend is foolproof either. She knows nothing of
   law or politics, she just knows the girl in question and follows the
   news. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:57:59 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   It is about rape. They asked him to use a condom, but he apparently likes
   unprotected sex.

   Sweden has very low threshold for what constitutes rape by the way,
   according to a lawyer friend.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Chris Farnham\" <chris.farnham@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:42:16 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   Is it possible to revoke some one's citizenship on the grounds of them
   being a total dickhead? 
   I don't care about the other leaks but the ones he has made that
   potentially damage Australian interests upset me. 
   If I thought I could switch this dickhead off without getting done I don't
   think I'd have too much of a problem.
   BTW, close family friend in Sweden who knows the girl that is pressing
   charges tells me that there is absolutely nothing behind it other than
   prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves. My friend
   speaks rather disparagingly about the girl who is claiming molestation. I
   also think the whole rape thing is incorrect for if I remember correctly
   rape was never the charge. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:23:03 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   What a douche.

   And I just want to be clear here... I have no problem with the leaks. I
   think they're great. And I think it may be good on some level to have
   stuff like this come out once in a while. What I can't stand is A) his ego
   trip and B) his clear anti-Americanism. Take the time to read the intro to
   Cablegate when you get the chance. This guy hates America more than OBL.

   What I love, however, is how nobody in the U.S. is mad about the cables.
   Hell, I have a better opinion of State Department diplomats now than I did
   before the cables. They actually said a few smart things here and there. I
   actually gave them a tip of my hat.

   I want to see him try to take on the Russians. He'd be going bald in an
   Iceland hospital within days.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:11:39 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   should we change our Stratfor motto now?
   Predictive, insightful intelligence...in a post-Cablegate world.
   On Dec 5, 2010, at 10:05 PM, Marko Papic wrote:

     This guy needs to take pills for his ego:

      He suggested, not for the first time, that he believes his document
      service has had a profound effect on world history: a**I believe
      geopolitics will be separated into pre- and post-Cablegate phases.a**

     Also, I have a question about this part (this is Assange's lawyer saying
     how Wikileaks would release full versions of all files -- including
     names of spies, etc. -- if harmed):

      WikiLeaks, Mr. Stephens said, has a**been subject to cyberattacks and
      censorship around the world and they need to protect themselves ... This
      is what they believe to be a thermonuclear device in the information
      age.a**

     Let's say the following scenario happens. Assange is arrested and
     extradicted to Sweden to face rape charges. Wikileaks releases the
     password to the insurance files. Would he not then be directly
     endangering U.S. and other country intelligence professionals? Would it
     not then be possible to prosecute him for espionage? 

     -- 
     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
     Marko Papic
     Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
     STRATFOR
     700 Lavaca Street - 900
     Austin, Texas
     78701 USA
     P: + 1-512-744-4094
     marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-06 06:05:28",1,"2012-02-29 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1055466_re-assange-is-off-the-hook-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1056763,"Re: Discussion- Assange Arrested
","One other point is this.  Ferreting out his confederates is also key. 
Find out what other disgruntled rogues inside the tent or outside.  Pile
on.  Move him from country to country to face various charges for the
next 25 years.  But, seize everything he and his family own, to include
every person linked to Wiki. 

Marko Papic wrote:
> Nate makes a good point. The arrest is not necessarily the end of
> Julian Assange. He could become a martyr in jail, particularly a
> Swedish jail, which I imagine has better amenities than my house.
>
>
> On 12/7/10 7:38 AM, Fred Burton wrote:
>> Will take weeks for extradition, unless he waves the process. 
>>
>> DOJ (Holder) won't seek prosecution on their own, but look for the GOP
>> (Congress) to press for criminal prosecution.
>>
>> Be easy to indict. 
>>
>> I would pursue Conspiracy and Political Terrorism charges and declassify
>> the death of a source someone which I could link to Wiki. 
>>  
>>
>> Nate Hughes wrote:
>>     
>>> Other thought is that I kind of feel like a lot of people were coming
>>> around to recognizing his astonishing douchebaggery and he was by this
>>> point undermining himself and his organization. If he does get tied up
>>> in the legal system, does he come out screaming all the louder? And if
>>> he does somehow get imprisoned, does he have the potential in
>>> incarceration to actually become the sort of inspirational,
>>> martryr-like (forgive the euphamism) figure that he always imagined
>>> himself to be in the free world?
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From: * Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
>>> *Date: *Tue, 7 Dec 2010 04:42:58 -0600 (CST)
>>> *To: *Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
>>> *ReplyTo: * Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
>>> *Subject: *Discussion- Assange Arrested
>>>
>>> We had the discussion below on Friday when it was first suggested that
>>> Assange would be arrested.  Here's a bit more:
>>>
>>> London Metropolitan police arrested Julian Assange, the founder and
>>> public spokesman for WikiLeaks, at 0930 GMT December 7.  He is due to
>>> appear in a court in Westminster soon to face charges of rape, accused
>>> by two woman in Sweden.  Charges of sexual assault rarely are passed
>>> through Interpol red notices, like this case, so this is no doubt
>>> about trying to disrupt WikiLeaks release of government documents. 
>>> While it's possible that Assange's arrest could disrupt the long-term
>>> viability of WikiLeaks, it will not stop the release of cables in the
>>> short-term and governments will now be concerned about what the
>>> organization may release in revenge.
>>>
>>> see discussion below.  (revenge = that encrypted 'security' file)
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From: *\"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
>>> *To: *\"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
>>> *Sent: *Friday, December 3, 2010 10:23:51 AM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [OS] UK/US/AUSTRALIA/CT- WikiLeaks back online, Assange
>>> close        to arrest
>>>
>>> yes, most likely would not stop these.  but it could disrupt whatever
>>> might be next. 
>>>
>>> Also all this trouble with internet hosting could serve to slow down
>>> this set of leaks.  And maybe a combination of wikileaks arrest and
>>> server shutdowns could stop it. 
>>>
>>> On 12/3/10 9:20 AM, Ben West wrote:
>>>
>>>     If Assange is running the show and his staff isn't as confident as
>>>     he is, then arresting him now could very well stop the flow of
>>>     cables. But all it takes is one person to keep it going - or just
>>>     dump them all at once if it gets too dicey, and these files have
>>>     been very widely distributed so far. I can't imagine anyone
>>>     reclaiming all the documents now.
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 12/3/2010 8:54 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>>         yeah also remember there was an article by nytimes i think
>>>         that alot of people on his staff were uncomfortable with the
>>>         way things were playing out, so without him there they may
>>>         loose nerve or come to their better senses
>>>
>>>         On 12/3/10 8:48 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
>>>
>>>             Yes, like Fred's source pointed out--arrest and trial
>>>             would just be a political circus.  It would probably not
>>>             disrupt wikileaks.  BUT, occasonally a leader makes an
>>>             organization, and maybe no one as capable will be willing
>>>             to fill his shoes.  Or at least, won't be able to get as
>>>             much pubilicity for wikileaks.  As you also said, it could
>>>             tarnish both Assange's and Wikileaks' repution.  That coul
>>>             dserve to discredit and undermine the group.  Maybe people
>>>             would be less inclined to leak to it, or the public would
>>>             be less inclined to pay attention--or more importantly
>>>             support wikileaks financially.  Though I admit the chance
>>>             of this causing the public to pay less attention is
>>>             minimal, and in fact would probably increase attention on
>>>             the guy. 
>>>
>>>             (though personally, getting a rapist off the street is
>>>             getting a rapist off the street.  Also, his mom owns a
>>>             puppet theater...)
>>>
>>>             On 12/3/10 8:38 AM, Ben West wrote:
>>>
>>>                 What would the overall significance of his arrest be?
>>>                 It's likely that the files are backed up elsewhere and
>>>                 that someone else could give the go-ahead for
>>>                 releasing them (that could very well already be the
>>>                 case) and if his back-ups are anything like Assange,
>>>                 they would welcome the publicity that would come to
>>>                 them by filling his shoes.
>>>
>>>                 If the British got custody of him, they could conduct
>>>                 searches or evidence that would support rape charges
>>>                 and, if they happened to find material regarding the
>>>                 leaks, that could lead to new charges. But this has
>>>                 been coming for a while, and if Assange was smart, he
>>>                 would have turned over any really sensitive stuff by
>>>                 now, which would decrease the likelihood of police
>>>                 finding anything juicy.
>>>
>>>                 Seems to me that all this really does is tarnish his
>>>                 reputation and make him look like scum. It provides
>>>                 some public distraction from all the leaked documents,
>>>                 but doesn't undermine their impact - just undermines
>>>                 the character of the person who facilitated the leaks.
>>>
>>>                 any other thoughts?
>>>
>>>                 On 12/3/2010 7:40 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
>>>
>>>                     I may have sent this out before- Assange walking
>>>                     out of a CNN interview.
>>>
>>>                     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lisa9XTRLb4
>>>
>>>                     just shows how far his head is up his ass. 
>>>
>>>                     On 12/3/10 7:32 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
>>>
>>>                         looks like Assange is in the UK and they might
>>>                         actually roll on him.
>>>
>>>                         On 12/3/10 7:31 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
>>>
>>>                             *OG source
>>>                             *
>>>                             Net closes on Assange: arrest by British
>>>                             police expected in days*
>>>                             By Mark Hughes and Jerome Taylor
>>>                             Friday, 3 December 2010
>>>                             http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/net-closes-on-assange-arrest-by-british-police-expected-in-days-2149805.html
>>>
>>>                             Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, is
>>>                             expected to be arrested in the coming days
>>>                             after Swedish prosecutors filed a new
>>>                             warrant with British authorities.
>>>
>>>                             The Independent revealed yesterday that a
>>>                             procedural error with the European Arrest
>>>                             Warrant had delayed the arrest of the
>>>                             39-year-old Australian, who is wanted in
>>>                             Sweden over sexual allegations but has
>>>                             been in England since October.
>>>
>>>                             Police in Gothenburg claim they have now
>>>                             submitted a fresh warrant to the Serious
>>>                             Organised Crime Agency. Soca is expected
>>>                             to instruct Scotland Yard to arrest Mr
>>>                             Assange and have him appear before an
>>>                             extradition hearing â€“ although as of last
>>>                             night the Metropolitan Police had yet to
>>>                             receive the warrant.
>>>
>>>
>>>                             Police sources have previously said that
>>>                             they received a letter from Mr Assange's
>>>                             UK-based lawyer, Mark Stephens, containing
>>>                             information about how to contact Mr
>>>                             Assange should they need to.
>>>
>>>                             Details of the new arrest warrant came as
>>>                             a last-ditch attempt to have the
>>>                             allegations against Mr Assange dropped
>>>                             failed. Sweden's highest court upheld the
>>>                             arrest order and refused to let him appeal
>>>                             against a lower court's ruling.
>>>
>>>                             Last night, Mr Assange's family spoke of
>>>                             their fears for his safety after
>>>                             increasingly shrill statements from
>>>                             American commentators who have called for
>>>                             his assassination. His mother, Christine
>>>                             Assange, said \"the forces that he's
>>>                             challenging are too big\".
>>>
>>>                             The arrest warrant filed with Soca states
>>>                             that he was wanted on suspicion of rape,
>>>                             sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
>>>                             But Soca requested a new warrant. A
>>>                             spokeswoman for the Swedish National
>>>                             Police Board told the BBC that the
>>>                             original one had been refused because it
>>>                             listed only the maximum penalty for the
>>>                             most serious crime alleged, rather than
>>>                             for all of the crimes.
>>>
>>>                             When the arrest is made, Mr Assange will
>>>                             be taken before an extradition hearing at
>>>                             Westminster magistrates' court. If he
>>>                             refuses to be extradited, a judge will
>>>                             preside over an extradition hearing and
>>>                             will rule whether he should be sent to
>>>                             Sweden or discharged.
>>>
>>>                             Last night, Mr Stephens said he would
>>>                             challenge any arrest in British courts.
>>>                             \"The process in this case has been so
>>>                             utterly irregular that the chances of a
>>>                             valid arrest warrant being submitted to me
>>>                             are very small,\" he said. Mr Stephens has
>>>                             accused Swedish prosecutors of launching a
>>>                             witch-hunt against his client, who
>>>                             strongly denies the rape allegations and
>>>                             says he is being smeared because of the
>>>                             exposÃ©s published by his website.
>>>
>>>                             He has maintained that Swedish prosecutors
>>>                             have yet to provide any evidence against
>>>                             Mr Assange and have ignored his requests
>>>                             to meet with them. He also expressed
>>>                             concerns at the way the UK and Swedish
>>>                             authorities were handling the case.
>>>
>>>                             \"I feel like I am sitting in the middle of
>>>                             a surreal Swedish fairytale,\" he said.
>>>                             \"The trolls keep threatening to come on
>>>                             and keep making noises off stage. But at
>>>                             the moment, no appearance from them.\"
>>>
>>>                             In an interview with an Australian
>>>                             newspaper, Mr Assange's mother defended
>>>                             her son and lambasted hawks in the US who
>>>                             have called for his death.
>>>
>>>                             Ms Assange, who runs a puppet theatre in
>>>                             Noosa, a Queensland beach resort, defended
>>>                             her son's decision to publish thousands of
>>>                             classified US documents on the website.
>>>                             \"He sees what he's doing as doing a good
>>>                             thing in the world â€“ fighting baddies, if
>>>                             you like,\" she told Queensland's Courier-Mail.
>>>
>>>                             Ms Assange â€“ who does not even own a
>>>                             computer â€“ described her son as a hero of
>>>                             the internet. But she added that she
>>>                             feared he had \"gotten too smart for
>>>                             himself\", saying: \"I'm concerned it's
>>>                             gotten too big and the forces that he's
>>>                             challenging are too big.\" She did not want
>>>                             him \"hunted down and jailed\".
>>>
>>>                             On 12/3/10 7:24 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
>>>
>>>                                 *WikiLeaks back online, Assange close
>>>                                 to arrest*
>>>
>>>                                 Updated 2 hours 45 minutes ago
>>>                                 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/03/3084384.htm
>>>
>>>                                 The WikiLeaks website is back online
>>>                                 with a new Swiss address after its
>>>                                 previous domain name was killed.
>>>
>>>                                 The whistleblower website's original
>>>                                 domain host, EveryDNS.net, says it
>>>                                 terminated its services because
>>>                                 Wikileaks had been coming under
>>>                                 \"massive\" cyber attacks.
>>>
>>>                                 The new address - wikileaks.ch - was
>>>                                 put online six hours after the
>>>                                 original site wikileaks.org was killed.
>>>
>>>                                 An internet trace of the new domain
>>>                                 name suggests that the site itself is
>>>                                 still hosted in Sweden and in France.
>>>
>>>                                 Web users accessing the wikileaks.ch
>>>                                 address are directed to a page under
>>>                                 the URL http://213.251.145.96/ which
>>>                                 gives them access to the former site,
>>>                                 including a massive trove of leaked US
>>>                                 diplomatic traffic.
>>>
>>>                                 The WikiLeaks website released more
>>>                                 than 250,000 secret US diplomatic
>>>                                 cables this week, which has left
>>>                                 governments around the world
>>>                                 scrambling to deal with the fallout.
>>>
>>>                                 Meanwhile, British media reports
>>>                                 Scotland Yard could arrest the site's
>>>                                 founder Julian Assange within days.
>>>
>>>                                 Prosecutors in Sweden want to question
>>>                                 Mr Assange over alleged sex crimes
>>>                                 involving two women during a visit to
>>>                                 Stockholm in August.
>>>
>>>                                 Mr Assange, who was born in Australia,
>>>                                 has not been charged and he denies the
>>>                                 allegations.
>>>
>>>                                 He reportedly avoided arrest this week
>>>                                 because Swedish authorities had filled
>>>                                 out an Interpol red notice incorrectly.
>>>
>>>                                 Britain's Independent newspaper
>>>                                 reports that police know Mr Assange's
>>>                                 whereabouts in England and are
>>>                                 expected to arrest him in the coming days.
>>>
>>>                                 Mr Assange's Stockholm-based lawyer
>>>                                 Bjoern Hurtig says he will fight his
>>>                                 client's extradition to Sweden in the
>>>                                 event of his arrest.
>>>
>>>                                 \"Together with my British colleague
>>>                                 Mark Stephens and international
>>>                                 experts, we will fight the extradition
>>>                                 warrants,\" he said.
>>>
>>>                                 A WikiLeaks spokesman says Mr Assange
>>>                                 has to remain out of the public eye
>>>                                 because he is facing assassination
>>>                                 threats following the whistleblowing
>>>                                 website's publication of the secret
>>>                                 cables.
>>>
>>>                                 Several US senators have also called
>>>                                 for him to be charged with espionage.
>>>
>>>                                 Senator Dianne Feinstein says the leak
>>>                                 is a serious breach of national
>>>                                 security and action must be taken.
>>>
>>>                                 \"We have reviewed the espionage
>>>                                 statutes and we believe it qualifies,\"
>>>                                 she said.
>>>
>>>                                 \"That this, allowed to be carried out,
>>>                                 incapacitates this nation to carry out
>>>                                 business.\"
>>>                                 -- 
>>>
>>>                                 Sean Noonan
>>>
>>>                                 Tactical Analyst
>>>
>>>                                 Office: +1 512-279-9479
>>>
>>>                                 Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>>
>>>                                 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>>
>>>                                 www.stratfor.com
>>>
>>>
>>>                             -- 
>>>
>>>                             Sean Noonan
>>>
>>>                             Tactical Analyst
>>>
>>>                             Office: +1 512-279-9479
>>>
>>>                             Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>>
>>>                             Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>>
>>>                             www.stratfor.com
>>>
>>>
>>>                         -- 
>>>
>>>                         Sean Noonan
>>>
>>>                         Tactical Analyst
>>>
>>>                         Office: +1 512-279-9479
>>>
>>>                         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>>
>>>                         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>>
>>>                         www.stratfor.com
>>>
>>>
>>>                     -- 
>>>
>>>                     Sean Noonan
>>>
>>>                     Tactical Analyst
>>>
>>>                     Office: +1 512-279-9479
>>>
>>>                     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>>
>>>                     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>>
>>>                     www.stratfor.com
>>>
>>>
>>>                 -- 
>>>                 Ben West
>>>                 Tactical Analyst
>>>                 STRATFOR
>>>                 Austin, TX
>>>                           
>>>
>>>
>>>             -- 
>>>
>>>             Sean Noonan
>>>
>>>             Tactical Analyst
>>>
>>>             Office: +1 512-279-9479
>>>
>>>             Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>>
>>>             Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>>
>>>             www.stratfor.com
>>>
>>>
>>>         -- 
>>>         Michael Wilson
>>>         Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
>>>         Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
>>>         Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com
>>>
>>>               
>>>
>>>
>>>     -- 
>>>     Ben West
>>>     Tactical Analyst
>>>     STRATFOR
>>>     Austin, TX
>>>         
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> Sean Noonan
>>>
>>> Tactical Analyst
>>>
>>> Office: +1 512-279-9479
>>>
>>> Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>>
>>> Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>>
>>> www.stratfor.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Sean Noonan
>>> Tactical Analyst
>>> Office: +1 512-279-9479
>>> Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>> Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>> www.stratfor.com
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>
> -- 
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
>
> Marko Papic
>
> Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
>
> STRATFOR
>
> 700 Lavaca Street - 900
>
> Austin, Texas
>
> 78701 USA
>
> P: + 1-512-744-4094
>
> marko.papic@stratfor.com
>
","2010-12-07 14:50:44",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1056763_re-discussion-assange-arrested-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1056988,"Re: Wikileaks is attacking us
","Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison.  Screw the terrorist. 
He'll be eating cat food forever, unless George Soros hires him. 

Reva Bhalla wrote:
> what.... the hell is that.  
>
> On Dec 7, 2010, at 11:24 AM, Bayless Parsley wrote:
>
>> would this suffice?
>>
>> <moz-screenshot-88.png>
>>
>>
>> On 12/7/10 11:13 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:
>>> when are your new book jacket pics coming out?  we need some new
>>> material.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 11:12 AM, George Friedman wrote:
>>>
>>>> He is always in an awkward pose. I'm merely posed in one.
>>>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Reva Bhalla <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
>>>> Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:05:59
>>>> To: Marko Papic<marko.papic@stratfor.com>
>>>> Reply-To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
>>>> Cc: <friedman@att.blackberry.net>; Kevin
>>>> Stech<kevin.stech@stratfor.com>; Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: Wikileaks is attacking us
>>>>
>>>> Assange v Friedman... who can look more intimidating in an awkward
>>>> pose?  Find out in the 2011 annual forecast
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Marko Papic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Potential diary? Comparing WikiLeak attack to Pearl Harbor...
>>>>>
>>>>> Will STRATFOR rebound and eventually launch a nuclear attack against
>>>>> WikiLeaks?
>>>>>
>>>>> Stay tuned... for $199 a year.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/7/10 10:57 AM, George Friedman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So pearl harbor it wasn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And while we are at it a moment to remember those that fell at
>>>>>> pearl 69 years ago today wouldn't me out of place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I'm not mistaken more americans died at pearl than died in iraq.
>>>>>> Not trivializing the latter. Simply highlighting the former.
>>>>>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: \"Kevin Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:42:57 -0600 (CST)
>>>>>> To: <friedman@att.blackberry.net>; 'Analyst
>>>>>> List'<analysts@stratfor.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: 'Reva Bhalla'<reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
>>>>>> Subject: RE: Wikileaks is attacking us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our research request tracking system was slowed to a crawl, and
>>>>>> brought down for about 10 minutes while I disabled access to the
>>>>>> port it was attacking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
>>>>>> [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
>>>>>> ] On Behalf Of George Friedman
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:41
>>>>>> To: Analysts
>>>>>> Cc: Reva Bhalla
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Wikileaks is attacking us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did it in anyway hinder our ability to operate.
>>>>>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: \"Kevin Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:38:55 -0600 (CST)
>>>>>> To: <friedman@att.blackberry.net>; 'Analyst
>>>>>> List'<analysts@stratfor.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
>>>>>> Cc: 'Reva Bhalla'<reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
>>>>>> Subject: RE: Wikileaks is attacking us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We also know that the traffic was specifically designed to test for
>>>>>> misconfigured software in an attempt to gain unauthorized web
>>>>>> content. The traffic was extremely aggressive and not at all subtle
>>>>>> or stealthy. It actually bordered on a denial of service attack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We also know that it wasnï¿½t originating from just any wikileaks
>>>>>> address, but from their webserver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These facts let us make some pretty solid guesses about whatï¿½s
>>>>>> going on. Maybe Iï¿½m never proven right, but the leading theory at
>>>>>> this point is IP spoofing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
>>>>>> [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
>>>>>> ] On Behalf Of George Friedman
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:35
>>>>>> To: Analysts
>>>>>> Cc: Reva Bhalla
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Wikileaks is attacking us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And yet we don't even know that for certain. Its inference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is what we know. A wikileaks address has sent some amateurish
>>>>>> traffic against a minor stratfor site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's it.
>>>>>> The rest inference. It would be interesting if this escalated or we
>>>>>> had more data but until we do, it is hard to justify publishing.
>>>>>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: \"Kevin Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:32:25 -0600 (CST)
>>>>>> To: <friedman@att.blackberry.net>; 'Analysts'<analysts@stratfor.com>
>>>>>> ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
>>>>>> Cc: 'Reva Bhalla'<reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
>>>>>> Subject: RE: Wikileaks is attacking us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I completely discount the idea that Wikileaks is doing the
>>>>>> attacking. Nor do I think anyone with legitimate access to their IP
>>>>>> address or network is doing this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think someone outside their network is spoofing their IP address,
>>>>>> generating a lot of annoying traffic, and attempting to get their
>>>>>> IP blacklisted by automatic security processes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: George Friedman [mailto:friedman@att.blackberry.net]
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:28
>>>>>> To: Kevin Stech; Analysts
>>>>>> Cc: Reva Bhalla
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Wikileaks is attacking us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you know that it is wikileaks as an organization attacking
>>>>>> and not someone using them as a mask?
>>>>>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: \"Kevin Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:16:15 -0600 (CST)
>>>>>> To: <friedman@att.blackberry.net>; 'Analyst
>>>>>> List'<analysts@stratfor.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cc: 'Reva Bhalla'<reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
>>>>>> Subject: RE: Wikileaks is attacking us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is unique in this attack
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a supposed attack against us by the Wikileaks webserver. Very
>>>>>> very strange and unique, especially in light of all the
>>>>>> circumstances.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is this an attack or someone's server gone nuts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Definitely an attack. No two ways about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there any reason except timing to assume any link to any other
>>>>>> event.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not sure what you mean by this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
>>>>>> [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
>>>>>> ] On Behalf Of George Friedman
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:13
>>>>>> To: Analysts
>>>>>> Cc: Reva Bhalla
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Wikileaks is attacking us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Three questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is unique in this attack
>>>>>> Is this an attack or someone's server gone nuts.
>>>>>> Is there any reason except timing to assume any link to any other
>>>>>> event.
>>>>>> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Rodger Baker <rbaker@stratfor.com>
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 10:11:21 -0600 (CST)
>>>>>> To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
>>>>>> ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
>>>>>> Cc: 'Reva Bhalla'<reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Wikileaks is attacking us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not think this is something we should write on.
>>>>>> First, do we know whether this is hitting anyone other than stech's
>>>>>> personal server?
>>>>>> second, what does it mean/matter?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 10:08 AM, scott stewart wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not obsessing, the attack is actually very interesting and
>>>>>> different from anything seen in the press.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
>>>>>> [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
>>>>>> ] On Behalf Of Marko Papic
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:07 AM
>>>>>> To: Analyst List
>>>>>> Cc: Reva Bhalla
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Wikileaks is attacking us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the readers would want to know...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is a good, \"hey, whats up over here?\"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> get Stech to write it... He knows what's up and needs to nerd out
>>>>>> on Assange.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> good publicity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/7/10 10:05 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:
>>>>>> let's not obsess over this too much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it's really not that important, IMO...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we sound just as obsessed as the rest of the media over this thing.
>>>>>> let's focus on real issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 7, 2010, at 10:03 AM, scott stewart wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
>>>>>> [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
>>>>>> ] On Behalf Of Marko Papic
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 11:00 AM
>>>>>> To: Analyst List
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Wikileaks is attacking us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If nobody else is noticing it, might be worth a quick 300 word
>>>>>> statement on it... almost like a brief.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, look... this is what is happening. We dont think WikiLeaks is
>>>>>> Douchbacking us on purpose. We ask our readers for thoughts...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LINK: Awesome diary
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LINK: Fuck you Assange
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/7/10 9:57 AM, Matthew Powers wrote:
>>>>>> I have not been able to find anyone else talking about this
>>>>>> online.  Seems even stranger if it is only Stratfor's research
>>>>>> server.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kevin Stech wrote:
>>>>>> Any reason to think the US is not behind this? Cui bono?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
>>>>>> [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
>>>>>> ] On Behalf Of scott stewart
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 09:49
>>>>>> To: 'Analyst List'; 'Marko Papic'
>>>>>> Cc: it@stratfor.com
>>>>>> Subject: RE: Wikileaks is attacking us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that option 2, is not it.  Too obvious to attack us using
>>>>>> their own system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
>>>>>> [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
>>>>>> ] On Behalf Of Kevin Stech
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:45 AM
>>>>>> To: 'Analyst List'; 'Marko Papic'
>>>>>> Cc: it@stratfor.com
>>>>>> Subject: RE: Wikileaks is attacking us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are only 3 options and theyï¿½re all hugely interesting
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Least likely: someone hacked into the wikileaks server, left it
>>>>>> running, and decided to attack stratfor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not likely: wikileaks doesnï¿½t like stratfor and is attacking us
>>>>>> from their webserver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likely: someone is spoofing wikileaks and acting like the internet
>>>>>> equivalent of an abusively drunk fratboy to get the wikileaks
>>>>>> server ip blocked from as many networks as possible
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of those scenarios is uninteresting, but I think my theory
>>>>>> fits best.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
>>>>>> [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
>>>>>> ] On Behalf Of Kevin Stech
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 09:30
>>>>>> To: 'Marko Papic'; 'Analyst List'
>>>>>> Cc: it@stratfor.com
>>>>>> Subject: RE: Wikileaks is attacking us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If these nerds were going to attack us, they wouldnï¿½t be doing it
>>>>>> from their webserver. Thatï¿½s idiotic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Marko Papic [mailto:marko.papic@stratfor.com]
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 09:29
>>>>>> To: Analyst List
>>>>>> Cc: Kevin Stech; it@stratfor.com
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Wikileaks is attacking us
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, we published the diary on Wikileaks last night... could that
>>>>>> have something to do with it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/7/10 9:27 AM, Marko Papic wrote:
>>>>>> Why us then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/7/10 9:26 AM, Kevin Stech wrote:
>>>>>> ï¿½or so someone wants us to think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The research box is currently being pounded with Internet traffic,
>>>>>> doing a very aggressive, over-the-top, amateurish security scan
>>>>>> that is not only annoying, its actually limiting functionality by
>>>>>> forcing the system to cope with 1000s of bogus requests. Itï¿½s the
>>>>>> type of thing that gets your IP address banned, or at least ignored
>>>>>> for a while.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The IP address doing this? 213.251.145.96
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So who is this asshole at 213.251.145.96? None other than
>>>>>> Wikileaks. But I donï¿½t think Wikileaks is security scanning us, nor
>>>>>> do I even think Wikileaks was hacked and someone is mounting a
>>>>>> security scan from there. I think its far more likely that people
>>>>>> are spoofing the Wikileaks IP address and acting like as big of an
>>>>>> asshole as possible in order to trip everyoneï¿½s automatic security
>>>>>> that bans and ignores the offender.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a nutshell, I believe someone is spoofing attacks from Wikileaks
>>>>>> in order to get their IP address blocked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kevin Stech
>>>>>> Research Director | STRATFOR
>>>>>> kevin.stech@stratfor.com
>>>>>> +1 (512) 744-4086
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>>>> Marko Papic
>>>>>> Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
>>>>>> STRATFOR
>>>>>> 700 Lavaca Street - 900
>>>>>> Austin, Texas
>>>>>> 78701 USA
>>>>>> P: + 1-512-744-4094
>>>>>> marko.papic@stratfor.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>>>> Marko Papic
>>>>>> Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
>>>>>> STRATFOR
>>>>>> 700 Lavaca Street - 900
>>>>>> Austin, Texas
>>>>>> 78701 USA
>>>>>> P: + 1-512-744-4094
>>>>>> marko.papic@stratfor.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Matthew Powers
>>>>>> STRATFOR Researcher
>>>>>> Matthew.Powers@stratfor.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>>>> Marko Papic
>>>>>> Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
>>>>>> STRATFOR
>>>>>> 700 Lavaca Street - 900
>>>>>> Austin, Texas
>>>>>> 78701 USA
>>>>>> P: + 1-512-744-4094
>>>>>> marko.papic@stratfor.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>>>> Marko Papic
>>>>>> Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
>>>>>> STRATFOR
>>>>>> 700 Lavaca Street - 900
>>>>>> Austin, Texas
>>>>>> 78701 USA
>>>>>> P: + 1-512-744-4094
>>>>>> marko.papic@stratfor.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>>>> Marko Papic
>>>>> Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
>>>>> STRATFOR
>>>>> 700 Lavaca Street - 900
>>>>> Austin, Texas
>>>>> 78701 USA
>>>>> P: + 1-512-744-4094
>>>>> marko.papic@stratfor.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
","2010-12-07 18:40:09",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1056988_re-wikileaks-is-attacking-us-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1057220,"Re: Discussion- Assange Arrested
","Depends on what charges would stick.  Bankrupt the arsehole first, ruin
his life.  Give him 7-12 yrs for conspiracy. 

Sources will die or have died is what I've been told, which is a very
conservative but reasonable assessment.  

In looking at the Wiki docs, you can easily ID a few sources if desired,
e.g., the plot to whack the VOA broadcaster by the Iranians. 

Nicolas Miller wrote:
> Fred,
>  what would be the maximum punishment for the charges you listed? has
> there been any sources that has been killed because of wikileaks?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *\"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com>
> *To: *\"nathan hughes\" <nathan.hughes@stratfor.com>, \"Analyst List\"
> <analysts@stratfor.com>
> *Sent: *Tuesday, December 7, 2010 7:38:52 AM
> *Subject: *Re: Discussion- Assange Arrested
>
> Will take weeks for extradition, unless he waves the process.
>
> DOJ (Holder) won't seek prosecution on their own, but look for the GOP
> (Congress) to press for criminal prosecution.
>
> Be easy to indict.
>
> I would pursue Conspiracy and Political Terrorism charges and declassify
> the death of a source someone which I could link to Wiki.
>  
>
> Nate Hughes wrote:
> > Other thought is that I kind of feel like a lot of people were coming
> > around to recognizing his astonishing douchebaggery and he was by this
> > point undermining himself and his organization. If he does get tied up
> > in the legal system, does he come out screaming all the louder? And if
> > he does somehow get imprisoned, does he have the potential in
> > incarceration to actually become the sort of inspirational,
> > martryr-like (forgive the euphamism) figure that he always imagined
> > himself to be in the free world?
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From: * Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
> > *Date: *Tue, 7 Dec 2010 04:42:58 -0600 (CST)
> > *To: *Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
> > *ReplyTo: * Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
> > *Subject: *Discussion- Assange Arrested
> >
> > We had the discussion below on Friday when it was first suggested that
> > Assange would be arrested.  Here's a bit more:
> >
> > London Metropolitan police arrested Julian Assange, the founder and
> > public spokesman for WikiLeaks, at 0930 GMT December 7.  He is due to
> > appear in a court in Westminster soon to face charges of rape, accused
> > by two woman in Sweden.  Charges of sexual assault rarely are passed
> > through Interpol red notices, like this case, so this is no doubt
> > about trying to disrupt WikiLeaks release of government documents.
> > While it's possible that Assange's arrest could disrupt the long-term
> > viability of WikiLeaks, it will not stop the release of cables in the
> > short-term and governments will now be concerned about what the
> > organization may release in revenge.
> >
> > see discussion below.  (revenge = that encrypted 'security' file)
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From: *\"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
> > *To: *\"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
> > *Sent: *Friday, December 3, 2010 10:23:51 AM
> > *Subject: *Re: [OS] UK/US/AUSTRALIA/CT- WikiLeaks back online, Assange
> > close        to arrest
> >
> > yes, most likely would not stop these.  but it could disrupt whatever
> > might be next.
> >
> > Also all this trouble with internet hosting could serve to slow down
> > this set of leaks.  And maybe a combination of wikileaks arrest and
> > server shutdowns could stop it.
> >
> > On 12/3/10 9:20 AM, Ben West wrote:
> >
> >     If Assange is running the show and his staff isn't as confident as
> >     he is, then arresting him now could very well stop the flow of
> >     cables. But all it takes is one person to keep it going - or just
> >     dump them all at once if it gets too dicey, and these files have
> >     been very widely distributed so far. I can't imagine anyone
> >     reclaiming all the documents now.
> >
> >
> >     On 12/3/2010 8:54 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:
> >
> >         yeah also remember there was an article by nytimes i think
> >         that alot of people on his staff were uncomfortable with the
> >         way things were playing out, so without him there they may
> >         loose nerve or come to their better senses
> >
> >         On 12/3/10 8:48 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
> >
> >             Yes, like Fred's source pointed out--arrest and trial
> >             would just be a political circus.  It would probably not
> >             disrupt wikileaks.  BUT, occasonally a leader makes an
> >             organization, and maybe no one as capable will be willing
> >             to fill his shoes.  Or at least, won't be able to get as
> >             much pubilicity for wikileaks.  As you also said, it could
> >             tarnish both Assange's and Wikileaks' repution.  That coul
> >             dserve to discredit and undermine the group.  Maybe people
> >             would be less inclined to leak to it, or the public would
> >             be less inclined to pay attention--or more importantly
> >             support wikileaks financially.  Though I admit the chance
> >             of this causing the public to pay less attention is
> >             minimal, and in fact would probably increase attention on
> >             the guy.
> >
> >             (though personally, getting a rapist off the street is
> >             getting a rapist off the street.  Also, his mom owns a
> >             puppet theater...)
> >
> >             On 12/3/10 8:38 AM, Ben West wrote:
> >
> >                 What would the overall significance of his arrest be?
> >                 It's likely that the files are backed up elsewhere and
> >                 that someone else could give the go-ahead for
> >                 releasing them (that could very well already be the
> >                 case) and if his back-ups are anything like Assange,
> >                 they would welcome the publicity that would come to
> >                 them by filling his shoes.
> >
> >                 If the British got custody of him, they could conduct
> >                 searches or evidence that would support rape charges
> >                 and, if they happened to find material regarding the
> >                 leaks, that could lead to new charges. But this has
> >                 been coming for a while, and if Assange was smart, he
> >                 would have turned over any really sensitive stuff by
> >                 now, which would decrease the likelihood of police
> >                 finding anything juicy.
> >
> >                 Seems to me that all this really does is tarnish his
> >                 reputation and make him look like scum. It provides
> >                 some public distraction from all the leaked documents,
> >                 but doesn't undermine their impact - just undermines
> >                 the character of the person who facilitated the leaks.
> >
> >                 any other thoughts?
> >
> >                 On 12/3/2010 7:40 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
> >
> >                     I may have sent this out before- Assange walking
> >                     out of a CNN interview.
> >
> >                     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lisa9XTRLb4
> >
> >                     just shows how far his head is up his ass.
> >
> >                     On 12/3/10 7:32 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
> >
> >                         looks like Assange is in the UK and they might
> >                         actually roll on him.
> >
> >                         On 12/3/10 7:31 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
> >
> >                             *OG source
> >                             *
> >                             Net closes on Assange: arrest by British
> >                             police expected in days*
> >                             By Mark Hughes and Jerome Taylor
> >                             Friday, 3 December 2010
> >                            
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/net-closes-on-assange-arrest-by-british-police-expected-in-days-2149805.html
> >
> >                             Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, is
> >                             expected to be arrested in the coming days
> >                             after Swedish prosecutors filed a new
> >                             warrant with British authorities.
> >
> >                             The Independent revealed yesterday that a
> >                             procedural error with the European Arrest
> >                             Warrant had delayed the arrest of the
> >                             39-year-old Australian, who is wanted in
> >                             Sweden over sexual allegations but has
> >                             been in England since October.
> >
> >                             Police in Gothenburg claim they have now
> >                             submitted a fresh warrant to the Serious
> >                             Organised Crime Agency. Soca is expected
> >                             to instruct Scotland Yard to arrest Mr
> >                             Assange and have him appear before an
> >                             extradition hearing â€“ although as of last
> >                             night the Metropolitan Police had yet to
> >                             receive the warrant.
> >
> >
> >                             Police sources have previously said that
> >                             they received a letter from Mr Assange's
> >                             UK-based lawyer, Mark Stephens, containing
> >                             information about how to contact Mr
> >                             Assange should they need to.
> >
> >                             Details of the new arrest warrant came as
> >                             a last-ditch attempt to have the
> >                             allegations against Mr Assange dropped
> >                             failed. Sweden's highest court upheld the
> >                             arrest order and refused to let him appeal
> >                             against a lower court's ruling.
> >
> >                             Last night, Mr Assange's family spoke of
> >                             their fears for his safety after
> >                             increasingly shrill statements from
> >                             American commentators who have called for
> >                             his assassination. His mother, Christine
> >                             Assange, said \"the forces that he's
> >                             challenging are too big\".
> >
> >                             The arrest warrant filed with Soca states
> >                             that he was wanted on suspicion of rape,
> >                             sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
> >                             But Soca requested a new warrant. A
> >                             spokeswoman for the Swedish National
> >                             Police Board told the BBC that the
> >                             original one had been refused because it
> >                             listed only the maximum penalty for the
> >                             most serious crime alleged, rather than
> >                             for all of the crimes.
> >
> >                             When the arrest is made, Mr Assange will
> >                             be taken before an extradition hearing at
> >                             Westminster magistrates' court. If he
> >                             refuses to be extradited, a judge will
> >                             preside over an extradition hearing and
> >                             will rule whether he should be sent to
> >                             Sweden or discharged.
> >
> >                             Last night, Mr Stephens said he would
> >                             challenge any arrest in British courts.
> >                             \"The process in this case has been so
> >                             utterly irregular that the chances of a
> >                             valid arrest warrant being submitted to me
> >                             are very small,\" he said. Mr Stephens has
> >                             accused Swedish prosecutors of launching a
> >                             witch-hunt against his client, who
> >                             strongly denies the rape allegations and
> >                             says he is being smeared because of the
> >                             exposÃ©s published by his website.
> >
> >                             He has maintained that Swedish prosecutors
> >                             have yet to provide any evidence against
> >                             Mr Assange and have ignored his requests
> >                             to meet with them. He also expressed
> >                             concerns at the way the UK and Swedish
> >                             authorities were handling the case.
> >
> >                             \"I feel like I am sitting in the middle of
> >                             a surreal Swedish fairytale,\" he said.
> >                             \"The trolls keep threatening to come on
> >                             and keep making noises off stage. But at
> >                             the moment, no appearance from them.\"
> >
> >                             In an interview with an Australian
> >                             newspaper, Mr Assange's mother defended
> >                             her son and lambasted hawks in the US who
> >                             have called for his death.
> >
> >                             Ms Assange, who runs a puppet theatre in
> >                             Noosa, a Queensland beach resort, defended
> >                             her son's decision to publish thousands of
> >                             classified US documents on the website.
> >                             \"He sees what he's doing as doing a good
> >                             thing in the world â€“ fighting baddies, if
> >                             you like,\" she told Queensland's
> Courier-Mail.
> >
> >                             Ms Assange â€“ who does not even own a
> >                             computer â€“ described her son as a hero of
> >                             the internet. But she added that she
> >                             feared he had \"gotten too smart for
> >                             himself\", saying: \"I'm concerned it's
> >                             gotten too big and the forces that he's
> >                             challenging are too big.\" She did not want
> >                             him \"hunted down and jailed\".
> >
> >                             On 12/3/10 7:24 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
> >
> >                                 *WikiLeaks back online, Assange close
> >                                 to arrest*
> >
> >                                 Updated 2 hours 45 minutes ago
> >                                
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/03/3084384.htm
> >
> >                                 The WikiLeaks website is back online
> >                                 with a new Swiss address after its
> >                                 previous domain name was killed.
> >
> >                                 The whistleblower website's original
> >                                 domain host, EveryDNS.net, says it
> >                                 terminated its services because
> >                                 Wikileaks had been coming under
> >                                 \"massive\" cyber attacks.
> >
> >                                 The new address - wikileaks.ch - was
> >                                 put online six hours after the
> >                                 original site wikileaks.org was killed.
> >
> >                                 An internet trace of the new domain
> >                                 name suggests that the site itself is
> >                                 still hosted in Sweden and in France.
> >
> >                                 Web users accessing the wikileaks.ch
> >                                 address are directed to a page under
> >                                 the URL http://213.251.145.96/ which
> >                                 gives them access to the former site,
> >                                 including a massive trove of leaked US
> >                                 diplomatic traffic.
> >
> >                                 The WikiLeaks website released more
> >                                 than 250,000 secret US diplomatic
> >                                 cables this week, which has left
> >                                 governments around the world
> >                                 scrambling to deal with the fallout.
> >
> >                                 Meanwhile, British media reports
> >                                 Scotland Yard could arrest the site's
> >                                 founder Julian Assange within days.
> >
> >                                 Prosecutors in Sweden want to question
> >                                 Mr Assange over alleged sex crimes
> >                                 involving two women during a visit to
> >                                 Stockholm in August.
> >
> >                                 Mr Assange, who was born in Australia,
> >                                 has not been charged and he denies the
> >                                 allegations.
> >
> >                                 He reportedly avoided arrest this week
> >                                 because Swedish authorities had filled
> >                                 out an Interpol red notice incorrectly.
> >
> >                                 Britain's Independent newspaper
> >                                 reports that police know Mr Assange's
> >                                 whereabouts in England and are
> >                                 expected to arrest him in the coming
> days.
> >
> >                                 Mr Assange's Stockholm-based lawyer
> >                                 Bjoern Hurtig says he will fight his
> >                                 client's extradition to Sweden in the
> >                                 event of his arrest.
> >
> >                                 \"Together with my British colleague
> >                                 Mark Stephens and international
> >                                 experts, we will fight the extradition
> >                                 warrants,\" he said.
> >
> >                                 A WikiLeaks spokesman says Mr Assange
> >                                 has to remain out of the public eye
> >                                 because he is facing assassination
> >                                 threats following the whistleblowing
> >                                 website's publication of the secret
> >                                 cables.
> >
> >                                 Several US senators have also called
> >                                 for him to be charged with espionage.
> >
> >                                 Senator Dianne Feinstein says the leak
> >                                 is a serious breach of national
> >                                 security and action must be taken.
> >
> >                                 \"We have reviewed the espionage
> >                                 statutes and we believe it qualifies,\"
> >                                 she said.
> >
> >                                 \"That this, allowed to be carried out,
> >                                 incapacitates this nation to carry out
> >                                 business.\"
> >                                 --
> >
> >                                 Sean Noonan
> >
> >                                 Tactical Analyst
> >
> >                                 Office: +1 512-279-9479
> >
> >                                 Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
> >
> >                                 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
> >
> >                                 www.stratfor.com
> >
> >
> >                             --
> >
> >                             Sean Noonan
> >
> >                             Tactical Analyst
> >
> >                             Office: +1 512-279-9479
> >
> >                             Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
> >
> >                             Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
> >
> >                             www.stratfor.com
> >
> >
> >                         --
> >
> >                         Sean Noonan
> >
> >                         Tactical Analyst
> >
> >                         Office: +1 512-279-9479
> >
> >                         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
> >
> >                         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
> >
> >                         www.stratfor.com
> >
> >
> >                     --
> >
> >                     Sean Noonan
> >
> >                     Tactical Analyst
> >
> >                     Office: +1 512-279-9479
> >
> >                     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
> >
> >                     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
> >
> >                     www.stratfor.com
> >
> >
> >                 --
> >                 Ben West
> >                 Tactical Analyst
> >                 STRATFOR
> >                 Austin, TX
> >                          
> >
> >
> >             --
> >
> >             Sean Noonan
> >
> >             Tactical Analyst
> >
> >             Office: +1 512-279-9479
> >
> >             Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
> >
> >             Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
> >
> >             www.stratfor.com
> >
> >
> >         --
> >         Michael Wilson
> >         Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
> >         Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
> >         Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com
> >
> >              
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     Ben West
> >     Tactical Analyst
> >     STRATFOR
> >     Austin, TX
> >        
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Sean Noonan
> >
> > Tactical Analyst
> >
> > Office: +1 512-279-9479
> >
> > Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
> >
> > Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
> >
> > www.stratfor.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sean Noonan
> > Tactical Analyst
> > Office: +1 512-279-9479
> > Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
> > Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
> > www.stratfor.com
> >
> >
","2010-12-07 14:47:59",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1057220_re-discussion-assange-arrested-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1057231,"RE: USE ME Re: Discussion- Assange Arrested
","   Yeah its like, phew, good thing Napster got its ass owned and people don't
   share pirated media anymore.

    

   From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
   On Behalf Of Reva Bhalla
   Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 07:53
   To: Analyst List
   Cc: Analyst List
   Subject: Re: USE ME Re: Discussion- Assange Arrested

    

   Wikileaks itself may struggle to survive but the idea that's put out
   there, that anyone with the bandwidth and servers to support such a system
   can act as a prime outlet of leaks. Ppl are obsessed with this kind of
   stuff. The idea behind it won't die

   Sent from my iPhone

   On Dec 7, 2010, at 8:43 AM, Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com> wrote:

     *Here's my full set of thoughts.  This may be a little too informal for
     our regular articles.  Hopefully this addresses the questions that have
     already come up. 

     London Metropolitan police arrested Julian Assange, the founder and
     public spokesman for WikiLeaks, at 0930 GMT December 7.  He is due to
     appear in a court in Westminster soon to face charges of rape, accused
     by two woman in Sweden.  Charges of sexual assault rarely are passed
     through Interpol red notices, like this case, so this is no doubt about
     trying to disrupt WikiLeaks release of government documents.  While it's
     possible that Assange's arrest could disrupt the long-term viability of
     WikiLeaks, it will not stop the release of cables in the short-term and
     governments will now be concerned about what the organization may
     release in revenge.

     Leadership is extremely important in non-governmental organizations that
     have not institutionalized.  From terrorist grous  to charities [LINK:
     http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090923_death_top_indonesian_militant],
     these organizations often ebb and flow along with their founders. 
     WikiLeaks is a new organization that has a created a novel method for an
     old practice- leaking confidential government information in an attempt
     to influence politics.  Leaking will not go away with Assange's arrest,
     but WikiLeaks might. 

     WikiLeaks created itself with Assange as the only public face-- he leads
     supports, drives donations, and faces criticism.  This has made many in
     the organization unhappy, and some have left it after disagreeing with
     him.  If Assange were to face charges in Sweden for sexual assault or
     new charges in the UK or US and was found guilty, WikiLeaks would still
     need someone to operate it.  Assange may have someone waiting in the
     wings, but that is not evident. 

     WikiLeaks has also suffered logistically and as a brand.  As national
     governments put pressure on its infrastructure, its websites have been
     shut and most importantly its main source of funding- PayPal- has closed
     WikiLeaks account.  With such pressure and government monitoring, future
     leakers may be too afraid of getting intercepted and go elsewhere. 
     Moreover, this new set of documents have not worked out like Assange
     expected- the public is not angry at the State Department, but many are
     angry at Assange and his organization. 

     Assange's arrest won't stop the continued leaks of this large batch of
     US State Department cables.  It also won't shut down WikiLeaks, which
     still maintains its website and the ability to collect information from
     leakers.  So in the short-term, WikiLeaks will maintain.  The question
     remains if it has created a truly sustainable institutions-- one where
     leaders are replacable, members can adapt to changing circumstance, and
     representatives can aid and inspire new leakers. 

     If Asange is extradited to Sweden and tried of one count of unlawful
     coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape, will
     he be able to maintain WikiLeaks image?  That is hard to say, but
     growing public criticism of him indicates his inability to grow
     WikiLeaks support base.  Western govrenments also fear whatever is
     contained in his ___ file, for which he threatens to release an
     encryption key if something happens to him.  WikiLeaks has already
     released its most damaging documents-- its attempt to get public
     attention-- and they haven't amounted to much.  This new file likely
     contains no more damaging information, but instead is full of names. 
     The names of sources who will be at risk and those of diplomats,
     military or intelligence officers who could lose their jobs. 

     WikiLeaks is now facing a conundrum that all new organizations do--the
     ability to maintain and transition leadership through adverse
     circumstances.  Maybe Assange will be released quickly-- STRATFOR cannot
     speak to the veracity of the charges against him-- but if he isn't,
     WikiLeaks will struggle to survive. 

     On 12/7/10 6:36 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:

     I would imagine the most politically \"exciting\" stuff has been published
     (much of which we already knew) but some of the less sexy things may be
     more damaging when released or released uncensored b/c it burns sources
     and people's careers (a few people have already lost their jobs in
     western countries...what about sources in less democratic countries)

     On 12/7/10 5:18 AM, Emre Dogru wrote:

     I am not clear about your argument in the last line. Why this arrest
     could disrupt long-term viability of Wikileaks? I would say the
     opposite, that there might be short-term disruptions (latest release was
     two days ago) but Wikileaks will work in the long-term. They already
     have over 250K documents and if they release them at the same pace,
     Wikileaks will have very long-term viability. Also, Ben's point below
     about possibly backed up documents is worth considering. 

      

     One more question. How do we now that Wikileaks has more sensitive
     information that governments should be concerned about as a revenge?
     Recall George's initial argument that they probably published most
     sensitive information at the very beginning to draw attention. 

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2010 12:42:49 PM
     Subject: Discussion- Assange Arrested

     We had the discussion below on Friday when it was first suggested that
     Assange would be arrested.  Here's a bit more:

     London Metropolitan police arrested Julian Assange, the founder and
     public spokesman for WikiLeaks, at 0930 GMT December 7.  He is due to
     appear in a court in Westminster soon to face charges of rape, accused
     by two woman in Sweden.  Charges of sexual assault rarely are passed
     through Interpol red notices, like this case, so this is no doubt about
     trying to disrupt WikiLeaks release of government documents.  While it's
     possible that Assange's arrest could disrupt the long-term viability of
     WikiLeaks, it will not stop the release of cables in the short-term and
     governments will now be concerned about what the organization may
     release in revenge.

     see discussion below.  (revenge = that encrypted 'security' file)

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Friday, December 3, 2010 10:23:51 AM
     Subject: Re: [OS] UK/US/AUSTRALIA/CT- WikiLeaks back online, Assange
     close        to arrest

     yes, most likely would not stop these.  but it could disrupt whatever
     might be next. 

     Also all this trouble with internet hosting could serve to slow down
     this set of leaks.  And maybe a combination of wikileaks arrest and
     server shutdowns could stop it. 

     On 12/3/10 9:20 AM, Ben West wrote:

     If Assange is running the show and his staff isn't as confident as he
     is, then arresting him now could very well stop the flow of cables. But
     all it takes is one person to keep it going - or just dump them all at
     once if it gets too dicey, and these files have been very widely
     distributed so far. I can't imagine anyone reclaiming all the documents
     now.

     On 12/3/2010 8:54 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:

     yeah also remember there was an article by nytimes i think that alot of
     people on his staff were uncomfortable with the way things were playing
     out, so without him there they may loose nerve or come to their better
     senses

     On 12/3/10 8:48 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     Yes, like Fred's source pointed out--arrest and trial would just be a
     political circus.  It would probably not disrupt wikileaks.  BUT,
     occasonally a leader makes an organization, and maybe no one as capable
     will be willing to fill his shoes.  Or at least, won't be able to get as
     much pubilicity for wikileaks.  As you also said, it could tarnish both
     Assange's and Wikileaks' repution.  That coul dserve to discredit and
     undermine the group.  Maybe people would be less inclined to leak to it,
     or the public would be less inclined to pay attention--or more
     importantly support wikileaks financially.  Though I admit the chance of
     this causing the public to pay less attention is minimal, and in fact
     would probably increase attention on the guy. 

     (though personally, getting a rapist off the street is getting a rapist
     off the street.  Also, his mom owns a puppet theater...)

     On 12/3/10 8:38 AM, Ben West wrote:

     What would the overall significance of his arrest be? It's likely that
     the files are backed up elsewhere and that someone else could give the
     go-ahead for releasing them (that could very well already be the case)
     and if his back-ups are anything like Assange, they would welcome the
     publicity that would come to them by filling his shoes.

     If the British got custody of him, they could conduct searches or
     evidence that would support rape charges and, if they happened to find
     material regarding the leaks, that could lead to new charges. But this
     has been coming for a while, and if Assange was smart, he would have
     turned over any really sensitive stuff by now, which would decrease the
     likelihood of police finding anything juicy.

     Seems to me that all this really does is tarnish his reputation and make
     him look like scum. It provides some public distraction from all the
     leaked documents, but doesn't undermine their impact - just undermines
     the character of the person who facilitated the leaks.

     any other thoughts?

     On 12/3/2010 7:40 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     I may have sent this out before- Assange walking out of a CNN interview.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lisa9XTRLb4

     just shows how far his head is up his ass. 

     On 12/3/10 7:32 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     looks like Assange is in the UK and they might actually roll on him.

     On 12/3/10 7:31 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     *OG source
     Net closes on Assange: arrest by British police expected in days
     By Mark Hughes and Jerome Taylor
     Friday, 3 December 2010
     http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/net-closes-on-assange-arrest-by-british-police-expected-in-days-2149805.html

     Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, is expected to be arrested in the
     coming days after Swedish prosecutors filed a new warrant with British
     authorities.

     The Independent revealed yesterday that a procedural error with the
     European Arrest Warrant had delayed the arrest of the 39-year-old
     Australian, who is wanted in Sweden over sexual allegations but has been
     in England since October.

     Police in Gothenburg claim they have now submitted a fresh warrant to
     the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Soca is expected to instruct
     Scotland Yard to arrest Mr Assange and have him appear before an
     extradition hearing - although as of last night the Metropolitan Police
     had yet to receive the warrant.

     Police sources have previously said that they received a letter from Mr
     Assange's UK-based lawyer, Mark Stephens, containing information about
     how to contact Mr Assange should they need to.

     Details of the new arrest warrant came as a last-ditch attempt to have
     the allegations against Mr Assange dropped failed. Sweden's highest
     court upheld the arrest order and refused to let him appeal against a
     lower court's ruling.

     Last night, Mr Assange's family spoke of their fears for his safety
     after increasingly shrill statements from American commentators who have
     called for his assassination. His mother, Christine Assange, said \"the
     forces that he's challenging are too big\".

     The arrest warrant filed with Soca states that he was wanted on
     suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. But Soca
     requested a new warrant. A spokeswoman for the Swedish National Police
     Board told the BBC that the original one had been refused because it
     listed only the maximum penalty for the most serious crime alleged,
     rather than for all of the crimes.

     When the arrest is made, Mr Assange will be taken before an extradition
     hearing at Westminster magistrates' court. If he refuses to be
     extradited, a judge will preside over an extradition hearing and will
     rule whether he should be sent to Sweden or discharged.

     Last night, Mr Stephens said he would challenge any arrest in British
     courts. \"The process in this case has been so utterly irregular that the
     chances of a valid arrest warrant being submitted to me are very small,\"
     he said. Mr Stephens has accused Swedish prosecutors of launching a
     witch-hunt against his client, who strongly denies the rape allegations
     and says he is being smeared because of the exposes published by his
     website.

     He has maintained that Swedish prosecutors have yet to provide any
     evidence against Mr Assange and have ignored his requests to meet with
     them. He also expressed concerns at the way the UK and Swedish
     authorities were handling the case.

     \"I feel like I am sitting in the middle of a surreal Swedish fairytale,\"
     he said. \"The trolls keep threatening to come on and keep making noises
     off stage. But at the moment, no appearance from them.\"

     In an interview with an Australian newspaper, Mr Assange's mother
     defended her son and lambasted hawks in the US who have called for his
     death.

     Ms Assange, who runs a puppet theatre in Noosa, a Queensland beach
     resort, defended her son's decision to publish thousands of classified
     US documents on the website. \"He sees what he's doing as doing a good
     thing in the world - fighting baddies, if you like,\" she told
     Queensland's Courier-Mail.

     Ms Assange - who does not even own a computer - described her son as a
     hero of the internet. But she added that she feared he had \"gotten too
     smart for himself\", saying: \"I'm concerned it's gotten too big and the
     forces that he's challenging are too big.\" She did not want him \"hunted
     down and jailed\".

     On 12/3/10 7:24 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     WikiLeaks back online, Assange close to arrest

     Updated 2 hours 45 minutes ago
     http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/03/3084384.htm

     The WikiLeaks website is back online with a new Swiss address after its
     previous domain name was killed.

     The whistleblower website's original domain host, EveryDNS.net, says it
     terminated its services because Wikileaks had been coming under
     \"massive\" cyber attacks.

     The new address - wikileaks.ch - was put online six hours after the
     original site wikileaks.org was killed.

     An internet trace of the new domain name suggests that the site itself
     is still hosted in Sweden and in France.

     Web users accessing the wikileaks.ch address are directed to a page
     under the URL http://213.251.145.96/ which gives them access to the
     former site, including a massive trove of leaked US diplomatic traffic.

     The WikiLeaks website released more than 250,000 secret US diplomatic
     cables this week, which has left governments around the world scrambling
     to deal with the fallout.

     Meanwhile, British media reports Scotland Yard could arrest the site's
     founder Julian Assange within days.

     Prosecutors in Sweden want to question Mr Assange over alleged sex
     crimes involving two women during a visit to Stockholm in August.

     Mr Assange, who was born in Australia, has not been charged and he
     denies the allegations.

     He reportedly avoided arrest this week because Swedish authorities had
     filled out an Interpol red notice incorrectly.

     Britain's Independent newspaper reports that police know Mr Assange's
     whereabouts in England and are expected to arrest him in the coming
     days.

     Mr Assange's Stockholm-based lawyer Bjoern Hurtig says he will fight his
     client's extradition to Sweden in the event of his arrest.

     \"Together with my British colleague Mark Stephens and international
     experts, we will fight the extradition warrants,\" he said.

     A WikiLeaks spokesman says Mr Assange has to remain out of the public
     eye because he is facing assassination threats following the
     whistleblowing website's publication of the secret cables.

     Several US senators have also called for him to be charged with
     espionage.

     Senator Dianne Feinstein says the leak is a serious breach of national
     security and action must be taken.

     \"We have reviewed the espionage statutes and we believe it qualifies,\"
     she said.

     \"That this, allowed to be carried out, incapacitates this nation to
     carry out business.\"

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

      

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

      

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

      

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

      

 --

 Ben West

 Tactical Analyst

 STRATFOR

 Austin, TX

      

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

      

 --

 Michael Wilson

 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR

 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112

 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com

  

      

 --

 Ben West

 Tactical Analyst

 STRATFOR

 Austin, TX

      

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

     --
     Sean Noonan
     Tactical Analyst
     Office: +1 512-279-9479
     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
     www.stratfor.com

     --
     --
     Emre Dogru
     STRATFOR  
     Cell: +90.532.465.7514
     Fixed: +1.512.279.9468  
     emre.dogru@stratfor.com  
     www.stratfor.com

 --

 Michael Wilson

 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR

 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112

 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com

  

      

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-07 14:58:50",1,"2012-02-28 13:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1057231_re-use-me-re-discussion-assange-arrested-.html","kevin.stech@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1058451,"Re: diary for comment
","   Nice work threading the needle on this one. Couple thoughts:

   Make clear and link back to our diary from last week that no serious
   person doubts that international diplomacy entails duplicity and
   deception. Read machiavelli.

   Also, whatever wikileaks can claim to have achieved, it has also
   substantially undermined candid exchange between nations. Diplomacy
   necessarily and has always entailed discretion and confidence. Without
   unveilling anything of watergate or even mcchrystal rolling stone
   revelatory, they've (without cause, other than the principle of the thing)
   thrown back the curtain that allows nations to function in a pragmatic
   sense, if not a rhetorical one -- thereby undermining the process without
   any clear gain. (I'm rambling on this graph a bit so don't run with it
   verbatim, but trying to emphasize that he's undermined how nations have
   interacted for hundreds of years for no clear reason, so as fun as these
   are to read, it's a little unproductive in the middle of a period of
   serious geopolitical maneuvering...)

   \"...technological advancements have long since minimized the utility of
   mobile archery...\" Need something about horse-mobile

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Marko Papic <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 19:59:35 -0600 (CST)
   To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: diary for comment

   Julian Assange, spokesman for Wikileaks, said over the weekend that
   \"geopolitics will be separated into pre- and post- Cablegate phases.\" A
   number of developments on Monday seemed to support his bold thesis. But
   STRATFOR nonetheless disagrees. 

    

   Another batch of released cables on Monday included a note from the U.S.
   Secretary of State Hilary Clinton asking U.S. diplomats abroad to gather a
   list of sites sensitive to U.S. national security interests. In the cable,
   Clinton asked for an updated list of sites \"which, if destroyed, disrupted
   or exploited, would likely have an immediate and deleterious effect on the
   United States.\" The disclosure sparked immediate outrage with U.S.
   officials, with the U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley
   commenting that the release \"amounts to giving a targeting list to groups
   like al-Qaida\".

    

   Meanwhile, STRATFOR sources in the U.S. as well as foreign intelligence
   agencies and diplomatic corps have continued on Monday to speak to us
   about how the leaks have indeed had a negative effect on their ability to
   conduct diplomatic business as usual. A senior foreign diplomat of a
   critical country to Washington's interests working inside the U.S.
   revealed to us that they are apprehensively waiting to see if their name
   is in the cables. Their candor with U.S. diplomats - often done at the
   expense of home government and as an attempt to build credibility with
   U.S. counterparts - may very well cost them their job if conversations are
   revealed. A precedent has been set within that country's foreign ministry,
   the diplomat acknowledged, of pulling back on speaking honestly about
   government deficiencies with U.S. officials.

    

   U.S. intelligence and diplomatic officials have also expressed
   frustration, with particularly negative implications for operations in the
   Middle East.  The U.S. intelligence community is also looking for ways to
   further compartmentalize information (LINK:
   http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101201_dispatch_wikileaks_and_implications_intelligence_sharing
   ) to prohibit similar disclosures in the future.

    

   Repercussions of Cablegate therefore are serious and global, not confined
   only to American statecraft. Diplomacy and intelligence professions may
   very well consider classifying its eras as pre- and post- Cablegate.

    

   But we take issue with the thesis that the Cablegate will mark geopolitics
   itself. Geopolitics is a set of constraints imposed primarily by geography
   -- with demographics and technology playing roles as well -- that limit
   strategic options for leaders. Belgium may want to be a world power - and
   it may have dabbled in the pursuit of such power in the jungles of the
   Congo -- but its existence is defined by its geography as a buffer between
   France and Germany. Mongolia may once have dominated vast stretches of the
   Eurasian steppe, but technological advancements have long since minimized
   the utility of mobile archery.

    

   One could argue that Cablegate introduces a new set of constraints,
   constraints of open information that will limit how governments pursue
   their national interests. But the episode does not actually affect one set
   of countries disproportionately over others. In fact, as much as the U.S.
   will now be hampered in intelligence sharing among its diplomats and
   intelligence officials a much less technologically advanced country will
   be hampered in getting its point across in a frank manner. It is not clear
   if anyone wins or loses. Power structures established by geography,
   demographics and technology remain unaffected. One continues to be either
   constrained or enabled by their particular circumstances.

    

   Diplomacy and intelligence work are crafts of manipulating and alleviating
   the constraints of geopolitics.  They are not constraints or enablers
   themselves. Diplomats and intelligence officials will adapt to the new set
   of constraints in their work --much as they adapted to the telegraph or
   the photocopy machine -- and this will take time, resources and training.
   But ultimately geopolitics remains unaffected.

    

   Perhaps we have misread Assange's point. Perhaps behind the thesis that
   Cablegate would change geopolitics is not a simple argument of new
   constraints and enablers emerging, but rather the assumption that the
   revelation of supposed cynicism and insidious scheming of U.S. diplomats
   would by itself create a call for change within the American - and global
   -- society. This has not happened. In fact, the U.S. public - as well as
   publics across the globe - seem to be very much aware of what their
   diplomats are doing and how they are going about their business. They are,
   as Joseph Stalin once wrote, quite aware that \"sincere diplomacy is no
   more possible than dry water or wooden iron.\"

    

    

   --

   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

   Marko Papic

   Geopol Analyst - Eurasia

   STRATFOR

   700 Lavaca Street - 900

   Austin, Texas

   78701 USA

   P: + 1-512-744-4094

   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-07 03:13:46",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1058451_re-diary-for-comment-.html","nathan.hughes@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1060101,"Re: Assange is off the hook...
","   If it really matters I can look in to it, but from what I am hearing that
   is not the case. 
   That's not to say that my friend is foolproof either. She knows nothing of
   law or politics, she just knows the girl in question and follows the
   news. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:57:59 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   It is about rape. They asked him to use a condom, but he apparently likes
   unprotected sex.

   Sweden has very low threshold for what constitutes rape by the way,
   according to a lawyer friend.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Chris Farnham\" <chris.farnham@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:42:16 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   Is it possible to revoke some one's citizenship on the grounds of them
   being a total dickhead? 
   I don't care about the other leaks but the ones he has made that
   potentially damage Australian interests upset me. 
   If I thought I could switch this dickhead off without getting done I don't
   think I'd have too much of a problem.
   BTW, close family friend in Sweden who knows the girl that is pressing
   charges tells me that there is absolutely nothing behind it other than
   prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves. My friend
   speaks rather disparagingly about the girl who is claiming molestation. I
   also think the whole rape thing is incorrect for if I remember correctly
   rape was never the charge. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:23:03 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   What a douche.

   And I just want to be clear here... I have no problem with the leaks. I
   think they're great. And I think it may be good on some level to have
   stuff like this come out once in a while. What I can't stand is A) his ego
   trip and B) his clear anti-Americanism. Take the time to read the intro to
   Cablegate when you get the chance. This guy hates America more than OBL.

   What I love, however, is how nobody in the U.S. is mad about the cables.
   Hell, I have a better opinion of State Department diplomats now than I did
   before the cables. They actually said a few smart things here and there. I
   actually gave them a tip of my hat.

   I want to see him try to take on the Russians. He'd be going bald in an
   Iceland hospital within days.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:11:39 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   should we change our Stratfor motto now?
   Predictive, insightful intelligence...in a post-Cablegate world.
   On Dec 5, 2010, at 10:05 PM, Marko Papic wrote:

     This guy needs to take pills for his ego:

      He suggested, not for the first time, that he believes his document
      service has had a profound effect on world history: a**I believe
      geopolitics will be separated into pre- and post-Cablegate phases.a**

     Also, I have a question about this part (this is Assange's lawyer saying
     how Wikileaks would release full versions of all files -- including
     names of spies, etc. -- if harmed):

      WikiLeaks, Mr. Stephens said, has a**been subject to cyberattacks and
      censorship around the world and they need to protect themselves ... This
      is what they believe to be a thermonuclear device in the information
      age.a**

     Let's say the following scenario happens. Assange is arrested and
     extradicted to Sweden to face rape charges. Wikileaks releases the
     password to the insurance files. Would he not then be directly
     endangering U.S. and other country intelligence professionals? Would it
     not then be possible to prosecute him for espionage? 

     -- 
     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
     Marko Papic
     Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
     STRATFOR
     700 Lavaca Street - 900
     Austin, Texas
     78701 USA
     P: + 1-512-744-4094
     marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-06 06:01:04",1,"2012-02-28 13:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1060101_re-assange-is-off-the-hook-.html","chris.farnham@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1061018,"RE: Random Business Idea - Network Security
","   Well governments are another matter I think. There is almost no possible
   way, with probably a couple tiny exceptions, to enfranchise your entire
   bureaucracy. So instead billions will be spent on wildly complex
   mechanisms to not only control the information you don't have access to,
   but to control the information you do have access to. Which basically
   amounts to controlling you.

    

   From: Marko Papic [mailto:marko.papic@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 00:38
   To: Kevin Stech
   Subject: Re: Random Business Idea - Network Security

    

   Or as Assange says in that interview: \"treat your employees well\".

   Great point. Problem is, that doesn't sell. ;)

   Imagine telling that to our leadership... lol

   On 12/9/10 12:34 AM, Kevin Stech wrote:

   You're right that it's really not a technological issue. There's a great
   technology for keeping your private data private already. It's called
   mandatory access control and it's been around for decades. The issue is
   more subtle since you're dealing with people leaking stuff they've been
   cleared to see. And now you're in the realm of grey matter.

    

   And it seems to me that here, as in many other things, an ounce of
   prevention is worth a pound of cure. I think that prevention can be boiled
   down to having a cohesive team with members that feel enfranchised. You
   don't leak your classified material, you leak their classified material.
   So if you want to be shady and exploit other people, fine. Just make sure
   you are on the same page with your co-conspirators and everybody gets a
   cut.

    

   If your company sells baby cribs and your employees are church-going
   soccer moms, then you might want to tone down the Dr. Evil routine.

    

   From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
   On Behalf Of Marko Papic
   Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 00:16
   To: Analyst List
   Subject: Re: Random Business Idea - Network Security

    

   That is the one...

   Forbes mentions how companies are now focusing on \"leak-proof\" network
   security. Interesting. I think that we would have a possible in there
   since that is not just about IT. But I don't really know what I am talking
   about.

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Kevin Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2010 12:11:02 AM
   Subject: RE: Random Business Idea - Network Security

   I believe this is the article Marko is talking about.

    

   WikiLeaks' next target is big business, Assange says

   Andy Greenberg, Forbes.com

   Date: Wed. Dec. 1 2010 7:39 PM ET

   http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/World/20101201/forbes-assange-interview-101201/

    

   In a rare interview, Assange tells Forbes that the release of Pentagon and
   State Department documents are just the beginning. His next target: big
   business.

    

   Early next year, Julian Assange says, a major American bank will suddenly
   find itself turned inside out. Tens of thousands of its internal documents
   will be exposed on Wikileaks.org with no polite requests for executives'
   response or other forewarnings. The data dump will lay bare the finance
   firm's secrets on the Web for every customer, every competitor, every
   regulator to examine and pass judgment on.

    

   When? Which bank? What documents? Cagey as always, Assange won't say, so
   his claim is impossible to verify. But he has always followed through on
   his threats. Sitting for a rare interview in a London garden flat on a
   rainy November day, he compares what he is ready to unleash to the damning
   e-mails that poured out of the Enron trial: a comprehensive vivisection of
   corporate bad behavior. \"You could call it the ecosystem of corruption,\"
   he says, refusing to characterize the coming release in more detail. \"But
   it's also all the regular decision making that turns a blind eye to and
   supports unethical practices: the oversight that's not done, the
   priorities of executives, how they think they're fulfilling their own
   self-interest.\"

    

   This is Assange: a moral ideologue, a champion of openness, a control
   freak. He pauses to think-a process that occasionally puts our
   conversation on hold for awkwardly long interludes. The slim 39-year-old
   WikiLeaks founder wears a navy suit over his 6-foot-2 frame, and his once
   shaggy white hair, recently dyed brown, has been cropped to a sandy
   patchwork of blonde and tan. He says he colors it when he's \"being
   tracked.\"

    

   \"These big-package releases. There should be a cute name for them,\" he
   says, then pauses again.

    

   \"Megaleaks?\" I suggest, trying to move things along.

    

   \"Yes, that's good-megaleaks.\" His voice is a hoarse, Aussie-tinged
   baritone. As a teenage hacker in Melbourne its pitch helped him
   impersonate IT staff to trick companies' employees into revealing their
   passwords over the phone, and today it's deeper still after a recent bout
   of flu. \"These megaleaks . . . they're an important phenomenon. And
   they're only going to increase.\"

    

   He'll see to that. By the time you're reading this another giant dump of
   classified U.S. documents may well be public. Assange refused to discuss
   the leak at the time FORBES went to press, but he claims it is part of a
   series that will have the greatest impact of any WikiLeaks release yet.
   Assange calls the shots: choosing the media outlets that splash his
   exposes, holding them to a strict embargo, running the leaks
   simultaneously on his site. Past megaleaks from his information insurgency
   over the last year have included 76,000 secret Afghan war documents and
   another trove of 392,000 files from the Iraq war. Those data explosions,
   the largest classified military security breaches in history, have roused
   antiwar activists and enraged the Pentagon.

    

   Admire Assange or revile him, he is the prophet of a coming age of
   involuntary transparency. Having exposed military misconduct on a grand
   scale, he is now gunning for corporate America. Does Assange have
   unpublished, damaging documents on pharmaceutical companies? Yes, he says.
   Finance? Yes, many more than the single bank scandal we've been
   discussing. Energy? Plenty, on everything from BP to an Albanian oil firm
   that he says attempted to sabotage its competitors' wells. Like
   informational IEDs, these damaging revelations can be detonated at will.

    

   Long gone are the days when Daniel Ellsberg had to photocopy thousands of
   Vietnam War documents to leak the Pentagon Papers. Modern whistleblowers,
   or employees with a grudge, can zip up their troves of incriminating
   documents on a laptop, USB stick or portable hard drive, spirit them out
   through personal e-mail accounts or online drop sites-or simply submit
   them directly to WikiLeaks.

    

   What do large companies think of the threat? If they're terrified, they're
   not saying. None would talk to us. Nor would the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
   WikiLeaks \"is high profile, legally insulated and transnational,\" says
   former Commerce Department official James Lewis, who follows cybersecurity
   for the Center for Strategic & International Studies. \"That adds up to a
   reputational risk that companies didn't have to think about a year ago.\"

    

   Already U.S. laws wrapped into financial reform this year expand
   whistleblower incentives to offer six- and seven-digit rewards to staffers
   in any industry who report malfeasance. WikiLeaks adds another, new form
   of corporate data breach: It offers the conscience-stricken and vindictive
   alike a chance to publish documents largely unfiltered, without censors or
   personal repercussions, thanks to privacy and encryption technologies that
   make anonymity easier than ever before. WikiLeaks' technical and
   ideological example has inspired copycats from Africa to China and rallied
   transparency advocates to push for a new, legal promised land in the
   unlikely haven of Iceland. It's also fueling a race in the cybersecurity
   industry and in Washington to find technology that can plug information
   leaks once for all.

    

   Today Assange looks tired, his eyes narrowed and the skin beneath them
   puffy, as if he's unused to even England's gloomy daylight. He has no
   permanent home. \"We're like a traveling production company; everyone moves
   somewhere, and we put on a production,\" he sighs. \"We haven't had any rest
   since April.\" In Sweden, where many of the group's servers are based, a
   warrant has now been issued for his arrest on rape charges. He's denied
   the accusations, arguing they amount to smear tactics. He's also afraid to
   set foot in several other countries, including the U.S., fearing that
   officials will find reasons to detain him. No question that WikiLeaks
   would be in trouble if he were jailed: A spokeswoman says it has a
   \"contingency plan,\" but without Assange there is no public face.
   Meanwhile, his resources have been drained by defections from his
   organization; some old friends and associates have taken issue with his
   autocratic style.

    

   None of which has stopped him from picking new fights. The promised
   release of bank documents would be the largest assault by WikiLeaks on the
   corporate sector, and Assange says the business community should expect
   plenty of sequels. In early October the site shut down its
   document-submission system; Assange says it was receiving more information
   than it could find resources to publish, thousands of additions a day at
   some points. The total is more gigabytes of data than he can count. \"Our
   pipeline of leaks has been increasing exponentially as our profile rises,\"
   he says, drawing a curve upward in the air with one hand.

    

   If even a fraction of his claims are borne out, he's already sitting on a
   crypt of data any three-letter spy agency would kill for. The world's most
   vocal transparency advocate is now one of the world's biggest keepers of
   secrets. And about half of those revelations, says Assange, relate to the
   private sector.

    

   Over the last four years he has been so busy embarrassing various
   governments, from Washington to the corrupt Kenyan regime of Daniel arap
   Moi, that many forget the corporate scandals already on WikiLeaks' trophy
   wall. In January 2008 the site posted documents alleging that the Swiss
   bank Julius Baer hid clients' profits from even the Swiss government,
   concealing them in what seemed to be shell companies in the Cayman
   Islands. The bank filed a lawsuit against WikiLeaks for publishing data
   stolen from its clients. Baer later dropped the suit-but managed to stir
   up embarrassing publicity for itself. The next year WikiLeaks published
   documents from a pharma trade group implying that its lobbyists were
   receiving confidential documents from and exerting influence over a World
   Health Organization project to fund drug research in the developing world.
   The resulting attention helped crater the WHO project.

    

   In September 2009 commodities giant Trafigura filed an injunction that
   prevented British media from mentioning a damaging internal report. The
   memo showed the company had dumped tons of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast,
   chemicals that allegedly sickened 100,000 locals. But it couldn't stop
   WikiLeaks from publishing the information. Trafigura eventually paid more
   than $200 million in settlements.

    

   How can an American corporation respond to a Wiki attack? Lawsuits won't
   work: WikiLeaks is legally shielded in the U.S. by its role as a mere
   conduit for documents. Even if a company somehow won a judgment against
   WikiLeaks, that wouldn't shut it down. Assange spreads the site's assets
   over many countries. \"There's no single target to drop a bomb on,\" says
   Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University.

    

   The best protection? With a dash of irony Icelandic WikiLeaks staffer
   Kristinn Hrafnsson suggests that companies change their ways to avoid
   targeting. \"They should resist the temptation to enter into corruption,\"
   he says. Don Tapscott, coauthor of The Naked Corporation (Free Press,
   2003), agrees. His simplistic conclusion: \"Open your own kimono. You're
   going to be naked. So you have to dig deep, look at your whole operation,
   make sure that integrity is part of your bones.\"

    

   Most corporations, instead, are turning to cybersecurity to shield their
   private parts. Despite dozens of calls to companies in tech, energy and
   finance, none wanted to talk about antileaking strategies. But a Forrester
   Research study found that about a quarter of companies in the U.S., the
   U.K., France, Germany and Canada were implementing leak-focused security
   software in 2010, and another third are considering that option. A study
   last year by the Ponemon Institute, a privacy-research consultancy in
   Traverse City, Mich., found that 60% of employees admit to taking
   sensitive data before they leave a company.

    

   *****

    

   Some of the more intriguing antileak work is being done by Uncle Sam. In
   an unmarked government building on the edge of a residential Arlington,
   Va. neighborhood, a cybersecurity researcher named Peiter Zatko shows just
   how easily leaks can occur. He lays out a blow-by-blow history of one
   insider data theft: The suspect searched broadly over the network to find
   anything related to critical infrastructure, then returned to manually
   probe a few interesting files. \"Then he walked away with enough
   information to shut down big chunks of the telephone systems in the United
   States,\" Zatko says matter-of-factly.

    

   Who was that shadowy data smuggler? \"That was me,\" says the 39-year-old
   researcher, giggling bashfully.

    

   Zatko is not your typical Department of Defense employee. Even in his new
   Beltway digs, he prefers to be called \"Mudge,\" the hacker handle he used
   during decades of exploring the dark corners of the Internet. Frank Heidt,
   a former security staffer at MCI and several military contractors, says
   that when he first read Zatko's exploit research in mid-1990s hacker
   zines, he thought that Mudge must be the pseudonym of a group. \"He was so
   prolific that I thought he couldn't be one person,\" Heidt says. In 1998,
   as part of the L0pht hacker think tank, Zatko testified in a congressional
   hearing that he and his friends could shut down the Internet in 30
   minutes.

    

   Since March Zatko has also been a lead cybersecurity researcher at the
   Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the mad-scientist wing of the
   Pentagon devoted to projects that occasionally result in breakthroughs
   like the Internet and GPS. Zatko's new pet project may be equally
   ambitious: He aims to rid the world of digital leaks.

    

   The telephone system theft case that Zatko dissected in a Darpa conference
   room was a test, demonstrating that anyone with access to a network could
   steal data without detection, despite the system's expensive security
   software. Now his challenge is to fix the problem. Since August he has led
   a project known as the Cyber Insider Threat, or Cinder. Like most Darpa
   initiatives it's an X-Prize-style open invitation for ideas; recipients
   typically get tens of millions of dollars in government funding.
   Thirty-five entrants, mostly tiny companies, have already publicly signed
   up, many more in secret. \"We're looking to everyone from academia to
   startups to large government contractors,\" says Zatko. \"We're not looking
   for evolutionary improvement. We want to pull the rug out from the problem
   altogether.\"

    

   It's a well-worn carpet. Since late 2007 every major security software
   vendor, from McAfee to Symantec to Trend Micro, has spent hundreds of
   millions of dollars to acquire companies in the so-called Data-Leak
   Prevention (DLP) industry-software designed to locate and tag sensitive
   information, and then guard against its escape at the edges of a firm's
   network.

    

   The problem: DLP doesn't work. Data is simply created too quickly, and
   moved around too often, for a mere filter to catch it, says Richard
   Stiennon, an analyst for security consultancy IT-Harvest, in Birmingham,
   Mich. \"For DLP to function, all the stars have to align,\" he says. \"This
   is a huge problem that can't be stopped with a single layer of
   infrastructure.\"

    

   More fashionable now is network forensics: the process of constantly
   collecting every fingerprint on a company's servers to trace an intruder
   or leaker after the fact-and, perhaps, deter the next one. That's a bit
   like fighting the next war according to the last one. Still, revenue at
   NetWitness, a prominent Herndon, Va. startup in that budding field, has
   leaped from $250,000 to $40 million since 2006. While the software
   generally gathers data and makes it easily available to queries, it
   doesn't pinpoint culprits. \"There's nothing in current technology that can
   do this in an automated fashion,\" says Shawn Carpenter, principal
   forensics analyst at NetWitness. \"You need a Columbo.\"

    

   Or, better yet, a robo-Columbo. Darpa's Zatko has been working on a system
   of automatically identifying what he calls \"malicious missions\": insider
   activity aimed at stealing data from inside a company's firewall, whether
   it's a Dell PC remotely hijacked by a Chinese cyberspy or Bradley
   Mannings, the U.S. soldier accused of leaking classified documents about
   combat in Afghanistan to WikiLeaks. Zatko's system would monitor networks
   in real-time for just the sort of data-stealing behavior he would perform
   himself: steps like scouring large areas of the network for a certain
   file, dumping piles of data to external storage hardware or sending
   encrypted files out over the Internet. No single episode would signal a
   leak; instead, the software would link acts in a probabilistic chain,
   triggering an alert only if a string of events points to purposeful data
   theft.

    

   Some of that leaky behavior isn't what a casual observer might expect.
   Consider the cyber footprints left by Robert Hanssen, a former FBI agent
   serving a life sentence in a Colorado supermax prison for selling
   intelligence to the Soviets over two decades. Every few days Hanssen would
   stop his normal activities and make a single query to a server across the
   network, a pattern he repeated for years. That server, Zatko says, held
   the counterintelligence database. Hanssen was searching for himself, a
   routine check to see if he'd finally been found out.

    

   \"You put all these things together into the different components of the
   mission,\" says Zatko. \"I'm looking for these new rhythms, new tells, new
   interrelations and requirements.\"

    

   Cinder wasn't created to combat WikiLeaks-in fact, it predates WikiLeaks'
   biggest military scandals. But Zatko has nonetheless found himself
   squarely in opposition to Assange's mission-a strange face-off, given that
   the two men once traveled in the same hacker circles, during the years
   when Assange went by the hacker handle Mendax (a Latin reference to the
   \"splendidly deceptive\" in the poet Horace's Odes) and reveled in accessing
   corporate and government systems without authorization. Neither will
   reveal much about their past encounters, but Assange says that they \"were
   in the same milieu.\" Asked about Assange, Zatko says only, \"I have very
   pleasant memories of those old days.\"

    

   WikiLeaks' founder, in fact, seems to have trouble accepting that Mudge is
   working for the other side. \"He's a clever guy, and he's also highly
   ethical,\" says Assange. \"I suspect he would have concerns about creating a
   system to conceal genuine abuses.\" He dismisses Cinder as just another
   system of digital censorship. And those systems, he says, will always
   fail, just as China's Great Firewall can't stop well-informed and
   determined dissident Internet users. \"Censorship might work for the
   average person but not for highly motivated people,\" Assange says. \"And
   our people are highly motivated.\"

    

   *****

    

   Shutting down WikiLeaks wouldn't stop the growing movement of transparency
   agitators. They now have a nation-size ally: Iceland. Since WikiLeaks
   scored a major scoop unearthing the corrupt loans that helped destroy that
   country's largest bank, the volcanic island is fast on its way to becoming
   the conduit for a global flood of leaks.

    

   It began when Kaupthing Bank collapsed in October 2008-a calamitous chain
   reaction that has strapped Iceland with $128 billion in debts, around
   $400,000 per capita. Ten months later Bogi Agustsson, a Walter
   Cronkite-ish anchor for Icelandic national broadcaster RUV, appeared on
   the evening news and explained that a legal injunction had prevented the
   station from airing a prepared expose on Kaupthing. Viewers who wanted to
   see the material, he suggested, should visit a site called Wikileaks.org.

    

   Those who took Agustsson's advice found a summary of Kaupthing's loan book
   posted on the site, detailing more than $6 billion funneled from
   Kaupthing's coffers to its own proprietors and companies they owned, often
   with little or no collateral; $900 million went to Olafur Olafsson, a
   major investor in Kaupthing who, on his birthday, flew in Elton John from
   England, along with a grand piano, for a one-hour concert. \"The banks had
   been eaten from the inside out,\" says Kristinn Hrafnsson, a former
   investigative reporter in Reykjavik who now works with WikiLeaks.

    

   A government investigation is still going on; no criminal charges have
   been filed. But WikiLeaks became a household name in Iceland. In December
   2009 Assange and Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a German who then worked with
   WikiLeaks, were invited to keynote a free-speech conference in Reykjavik.
   Their talk echoed an idea from American cyberlibertarian John Perry
   Barlow, calling for a \"Switzerland of bits.\" Iceland, with its independent
   spirit and recent taste of explosive whistle-blowing, they suggested,
   could become the digital doppelga:nger of a tax haven: a safe harbor for
   transparency, where it's open season on government and business
   secrets-and leakers are protected by law.

    

   The idea might have gone nowhere if not for Birgitta Jonsdottir. Assange's
   message captivated the 43-year-old poet and self-styled
   \"realist-anarchist.\" She wasn't just another idealistic protester with a
   goth wardrobe and hipster haircut. In the chaotic political environment
   that followed the national financial crisis, Jonsdottir had been elected
   to Iceland's parliament, the Althingi, in April 2009.

    

   Working with the country's transparency activists, she pulled together the
   Icelandic Modern Media Initiative, or Immi. The initiative would bring to
   Iceland all the source-protection, freedom of information and transparency
   laws from around the world and even set up a Nobel-style international
   award for work in the field of free expression. Jonsdottir pushed through
   a unanimous resolution to create a series of bills to implement Immi. They
   would also make Iceland the most friendly legal base for whistleblowers on
   Earth.

    

   Velkomin, as Icelanders would say, to Leakistan.

    

   \"The more that companies resist, the more information will get out about
   them,\" says Jonsdottir when we meet in Reykjavik's Hressingarskalinn cafe,
   around the corner from the parliament building. \"They can't hide anymore.
   The war is over. They lost.\" In Jonsdottir's vision Iceland will attract
   both mainstream media and WikiLeaks-like organizations to move their data
   to Iceland, enjoying legal protection, just as another firm might
   incorporate in a tax-sheltering island in the Caribbean.

    

   She may be getting a bit ahead of herself. Immi has yet to become law,
   though it has backing from powerful figures, including both Iceland's
   minister of justice and the head of its progressive party. Even if it
   does, Immi likely wouldn't offer much legal protection to organizations
   whose assets and staff aren't physically in the country; they could still
   be sued anywhere else in the world, given that their digital and print
   publications could appear globally. Immi could also face resistance from
   the U.S. and the EU-particularly when it comes to military matters. As
   Marc Thiessen, a conservative pundit, wrote on the blog of the American
   Enterprise Institute in August, \"Immi calls into question Iceland's
   seriousness as a NATO ally, and Iceland needs to realize there will be
   consequences for its actions.\" There could be a backlash for exposing
   corporate secrets, too. Alastair Mullis, a professor of law at East Anglia
   University in Britain, says, \"It's possible that Iceland will become the
   defamation capital of the world.\"

    

   Jonsdottir and fellow Immi creator Smari McCarthy are pushing ahead
   anyway. Immi, they say, doesn't fashion new laws; it cherry-picks existing
   statutes from around the world (source shields from Sweden, libel
   protection from New York State, protected communications with journalists
   from Belgium, among them). \"We're basing our legislation on laws that have
   already withstood attacks,\" says Jonsdottir. Defamation and other concerns
   like child pornography and copyright violations, she argues, would still
   be illegal in Iceland and wouldn't be sheltered.

    

   Nor is the idea to protect WikiLeaks itself, Jonsdottir points out. The
   site doesn't need help: Its data and submissions process are carefully
   encrypted, and its infrastructure is spread over enough
   countries-including some servers in a bombproof, underground bunker in
   Sweden-that taking it offline is already nearly impossible.

   Instead Immi would foster a new wave of media organizations and
   whistleblower outlets that don't rely on WikiLeaks' technical savvy or
   resources. Already a handful of smaller, leak-focused conduits-regional
   sites like Africa-focused SaharaReporters or Thaileaks.info-have published
   damning data. Immi's McCarthy says he's been approached by media
   organizations from Rwanda to Chechnya. German WikiLeaks staffer Daniel
   Domscheit-Berg, disgruntled with Assange's laser focus on infrequent
   megaleaks, has left the organization along with several others to create
   his own spinoff. \"In the end there must be a thousand WikiLeaks,\" he told
   Der Spiegel in September.

    

   Iceland certainly has the infrastructure for a lot of informational
   mischief. Half an hour outside Reykjavik, on a landscape that resembles
   Mars covered in snow, the Thor Data Center is preparing for an influx of
   bytes. By 2011 it hopes to have thousands of servers in its
   aluminum-plant-turned-server-farm, powered by ultracheap geothermal energy
   and cooled by free arctic air. Iceland's biggest Web host, ironically
   named 1984 Web Hosting, is excited about the boost Immi could give its
   business. \"I created this company to prevent thought control,\" says Mordur
   Ingolfsson, its chief executive. \"In my humble opinion, Immi is the most
   important thing to happen to this godforsaken island since the Sagas were
   written.\" (That's 600-plus years.)

    

   Jonsdottir agrees: \"WikiLeaks was an important icebreaker. It was the tip.
   Immi is the rest of the wedge, and it will open up everything.\" (She is
   less thrilled to learn that Assange speaks of Immi as his personal
   creation.)I ask Assange how he expects companies to cope with a world
   where hundreds of WikiLeak-alikes may soon exist. His three-part
   prescription is earnest-if a bit patronizing: \"Do things to encourage
   leaks from dishonest competitors. Be as open and honest as possible. Treat
   your employees well.\"

   He also wants to clear up a misunderstanding. Despite his revolutionary
   reputation, he's not antibusiness. He bristles at the media's focus on his
   teenage years as a computer hacker who broke into dozens of systems, from
   the Department of Defense to Nortel, and was eventually convicted on 25
   charges of computer fraud and fined thousands of dollars.

    

   Instead, he prefers to think of himself as an entrepreneur. He tells the
   story of a free-speech-focused Internet service provider he cofounded in
   1993, known as Suburbia. It was, to hear him tell it, the blueprint for
   WikiLeaks-in one instance, when the Church of Scientology demanded to know
   who had posted antichurch information on one site, he refused to help.
   (\"He has titanium balls,\" says David Gerard, that site's creator.) \"I saw
   it early on, without realizing it: potentiating people to reveal their
   information, creating a conduit,\" Assange says. \"Without having any other
   robust publisher in the market, people came to us.\"

    

   Leaks merely lubricate the free market, he says, settling into the couch
   and clearly enjoying giving me a lecture on economics. (Later, as a
   45-minute interview pushes into two hours, he ignores his handler, who
   keeps urging him to leave for his next appointment.) He cites the example
   of the Chinese Sanlu Group, whose milk powder contained toxic melamine in
   2008. While poisoning its customers, Sanlu also gained an advantage over
   competitors and might have forced more of them to taint their products,
   too, or go bankrupt-if Sanlu hadn't been exposed in the Chinese press. \"In
   the struggle between open and honest companies and dishonest and closed
   companies, we're creating a tremendous reputational tax on the unethical
   companies,\" he says.

    

   Of course, Assange's tax isn't as equitable as it sounds. He alone decides
   where to apply the penalty, choosing the targets and when to expose them
   with a touch of theatrical grandstanding-and with zero accountability. For
   better-and worse-WikiLeaks has become the Julian Assange Show. As a
   photographer begins shooting, Assange wonders aloud if the coat he's
   wearing might have been produced by a labor-exploiting company. A few
   minutes later he jokes about his \"messiah complex.\"

    

   Like any true believer, Assange sees his work in simple terms. Markets, he
   reminds me, can't exist without information. Business will come to
   appreciate what he offers. And if that requires a few painful scandals in
   the process?

    

   Assange doesn't miss a beat. \"Pain for the guilty.

    

   From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
   On Behalf Of Marko Papic
   Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 19:39
   To: analysts
   Subject: Random Business Idea - Network Security

    

   I'm sure this has been thought of before at STRATFOR so excuse the
   redundancy. I was reading a solid Forbes article on Assange and it said
   that a large number of deep pocket corporations were looking into
   leak-focused network security after these Wikileak episodes.

   I was wondering if it was possible for us to get some of that
   \"leak-focused\" gravy train. This is an obvious fear sale, so that's a good
   thing. And we have something to offer that the IT security companies
   don't, mainly our focus on counter-intelligence and surveillance that Fred
   and Stick know better than anyone on the planet.

   We do a lot of good work with all the personal/executive security analysis
   as well. Could we develop some ideas and procedures on the idea of
   \"leak-focused\" network security that focuses on preventing one's own
   employees from leaking sensitive information.

   The point here is that I am sure there are certain procedures and
   precautions that companies should employ that go beyond installing network
   security network to deal with potential leaks. In fact, Im not so sure
   this is an IT problem that requires an IT solution.

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com

    

   --

   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

   Marko Papic

   Geopol Analyst - Eurasia

   STRATFOR

   700 Lavaca Street - 900

   Austin, Texas

   78701 USA

   P: + 1-512-744-4094

   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-09 07:44:55",1,"2012-02-27 12:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1061018_re-random-business-idea-network-security-.html","","","marko.papic@stratfor.com",""
1062505,"Re: WikiLeaks cables: Shell boasts it has infiltrated Nigerian
	government
","I'm sure Shell Corporate Security is hating life right about now.  

I would not be surprised to see a few Nigerian govt officials to be
locked up or blown up as a result. 

Since Shell has a U.S. footprint, the FCPA DOJ investigations will be
following suit.

MNC worst nightmare....


Fred Burton wrote:
>   WikiLeaks cables: Shell boasts it has infiltrated Nigerian government
>
> US embassy cables reveal top executive's claims that company 'knows
> everything' about key decisions in oil-rich Niger Delta
>
> The oil <http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/oil> giant Shell claimed it
> has inserted its staff into all key ministries of the Nigerian
> government, giving it access to politicians' every move in the oil-rich
> Niger Delta, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable.
>
> The company's top executive in Nigeria
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/nigeria> told US diplomats that Shell
> had seconded employees to every relevant department and so knew
> \"everything that was being done in those ministries\". She boasted that
> the Nigerian government had \"forgotten\" about the extent of Shell's
> infiltration and were unaware of how much the company knew about its
> deliberations.
>
> The cache of secret dispatches from Washington's embassies in Africa
> also revealed that the Anglo-Dutch oil firm swapped intelligence with
> the US, in one case providing US diplomats with the names of Nigerian
> politicians it suspected of supporting militant activity and requesting
> information from the US on whether the militants had acquired
> anti-aircraft missiles.
>
> Other cables rreveal:
>
> • US diplomats fear that Kenya could erupt in violence worse than that
> experienced after the election in 2008 unless rampant government
> corruption is tackled.
>
> • America asked Uganda to let it know if its army intended to commit war
> crimes based on US intelligence – but did not try to prevent war crimes
> taking place.
>
> • Washington's ambassador to the troubled African state of Eritrea
> described its president, Isaias Afwerki, as a cruel \"unhinged dictator\"
> who's regime was \"one bullet away from implosion\".
>
> The latest revelations came on a day that saw hackers sympathetic to
> WikiLeaks target Mastercard and Visa over their decision to block
> payments to the whistleblowers' website who's founder, Julian Assange,
> spent a second night in prison after a judge refused him bail ahead of
> an extradition hearing to face questioning over sexual assault charges
> in Sweden.
>
> Campaigners tonight said the revelation about Shell in Nigeria
> demonstrate the tangled links between the oil firm and politicians in
> the country where, despite billions of dollars in oil revenue, 70% of
> people live below the poverty line.
>
> Cables from Nigeria show how Ann Pickard
> <http://www.shell.com.au/home/content/aus/aboutshell/who_we_are/leadership>,
> then Shell's vice-president for sub-Saharan Africa, sought to share
> intelligence with the US government on militant activity and business
> competition in the contested Niger Delta — and how, with some
> prescience, she seemed reluctant to open up because of a suspicion the
> US government was \"leaky\".
>
> But that did not prevent Pickard disclosing the company's reach into
> Nigerian government when she met US ambassador Robin Renee Sanders,
> recorded in a confidential memo from the American embassy in Abuja on 20
> October 2009.
>
> At the meeting Pickard related how the company had obtained a letter
> showing that the Nigerian government had invited bids for oil
> concessions from China. She said the Minister of State for Petroleum
> Resources Odein Ajumogobia had denied the letter had been sent but Shell
> knew similar correspondence had taken place with China and Russia
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/russia>.
>
> The ambassador reported: \"She said the GON [government of Nigeria] had
> forgotten that Shell had seconded people to all the relevant ministries
> and that Shell consequently had access to everything that was being done
> in those ministries.\"
>
> Nigeria is Africa's leading oil producer and the eighth biggest exporter
> in the world, accounting for 8% of US oil imports. Although a recent UN
> report largely exonerated the company, critics accuse Shell, the biggest
> operator in the delta, and other companies, of causing widespread
> pollution and environmental damage
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/cif-green/2010/nov/09/niger-delta-shell-crisis>
> in the region. Militant groups engaged in hostage-taking and sabotage
> have proliferated.
>
> The WikiLeaks disclosure was today seized on by campaigners as evidence
> of Shell's vice-like grip on the country's oil wealth. \"Shell and the
> government of Nigeria are two sides of the same coin,\" said Celestine
> AkpoBari, programme officer for Social Action Nigeria.
>
> \"Shell is everywhere. They have an eye and an ear in every ministry of
> Nigeria. They have people on the payroll in every community, which is
> why they get away with everything. They are more powerful than the
> Nigerian government.\"
>
> The criticism was echoed by Ben Amunwa of the London-based oil watchdog
> Platform <http://platformlondon.org>. \"Shell claims to have nothing to
> do with Nigerian politics,\" he said. \"In reality, Shell works deep
> inside the system, and has long exploited political channels in Nigeria
> to its own advantage.\"
>
> Nigeria tonight strenuously denied the claim. Levi Ajuonoma, a spokesman
> for state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation
> <http://www.nnpcgroup.com>, said: \"Shell does not control the government
> of Nigeria and has never controlled the government of Nigeria. This
> cable is the mere interpretation of one individual. It is absolutely
> untrue, an absolute falsehood and utterly misleading. It is an attempt
> to demean the government and we will not stand for that. I don't think
> anybody will lose sleep over it.\"
>
> Another cable released today, from the US consulate in Lagos and dated
> 19 September 2008, claims that Pickard told US diplomats that two named
> regional politicians were behind unrest in the Rivers state. She also
> asked if the American diplomats had any intelligence on shipments of
> surface to air missiles (SAMs) to militants in the Niger Delta.
>
> \"She claimed Shell has 'intelligence' that one to three SAMs may have
> been shipped to Nigerian militant groups, although she seemed somewhat
> sceptical of that information and wondered if such sensitive systems
> would last long in the harsh environment of the Niger Delta in the care
> of groups not known for their preventive maintenance practices,\" the
> cable said.
>
> Pickard also said Shell had learned from the British government details
> of Russian energy company Gazprom's ambitions to enter the Nigerian
> market. In June last year Gazprom signed a $2.5bn (£1.5bn) deal with the
> state-owned Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation to build refineries,
> pipelines and gas power stations.
>
> Shell put a request to the US consulate for potentially sensitive
> intelligence about its possible rival, which she said had secured a
> promise from the Nigerian government of access to 17 trillion cubic feet
> of natural gas – roughly a tenth of Nigeria's entire reserves.
>
> \"Pickard said that that amount of gas was only available if the GON were
> to take concessions currently assigned to other oil companies and give
> them to Gazprom. She assumed Shell would be the GON's prime target.\"
> Pickard alleged that a conversation with a Nigerian government minister
> had been secretly recorded by the Russians. Shortly after the meeting in
> the minister's office she received a verbatim transcript of the meeting
> \"from Russia\", according to the memo.
>
> The cable concludes with the observation that the oil executive had
> tended to be guarded in discussion with US officials. \"Pickard has
> repeatedly told us she does not like to talk to USG [US government]
> officials because the USG is 'leaky'.\" She may be concerned that...bad
> news about Shell's Nigerian operations will leak out.\"
>
> Shell declined to comment on the allegations, saying: \"You are seeking
> our views on a leaked cable allegedly containing information about a
> private conversation involving a Shell representative, but have declined
> to share this cable or to permit us sufficient time to obtain
> information from the person you say took part in the conversation on the
> part of Shell. In view of this, we cannot comment on the alleged
> contents of the cable, including the correctness or incorrectness of any
> statements you say it contains.\"
>
>   
","2010-12-08 22:58:01",1,"2012-03-01 23:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1062505_re-wikileaks-cables-shell-boasts-it-has-infiltrated-nigerian.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com,tactical@stratfor.com,africa@stratfor.com",""
1063815,"Re: [CT] Anonymous and Occupy divergence...in the Iowa caucuses
","   occupying the caucasus themselves would be impossible -- as Sean noted its
   direct participatory democracy...each congressional district is split into
   not-so-small number of precincts, withe separate meeting places for
   democrats and republicans

   so my home town -- population 26k -- had 12 caucasus locations

   the greater des moines are (cue the laughter) would have something like 25
   times that

   and there is one other nice thing about Iowa -- the roads leading out are
   in immaculate condition

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   To: \"CT AOR\" <ct@stratfor.com>
   Cc: \"Peter Zeihan\" <peter.zeihan@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2011 9:30:51 PM
   Subject: Anonymous and Occupy divergence...in the Iowa caucuses

   Ironically after all my Anonymous bashing, i want to point out a very
   minor development. Mainly because it's funny to me. 

   I mentioned the Occupy Des Moines protest last week sometime.  It is very
   small, and a lot like Austin's.  They have been planning for a few weeks
   to Occupy the Iowa caucuses.  For those of you that don't know about the
   practice of the most important local democratic process in the world, the
   Iowa Caucuses are the first round of true competition between presidential
   candidates.  Unlike voting in a primary, it's more like a town hall
   meeting with much debate and discussion--a very open democratic form.  A
   candidate doesn't have to win Iowa necessarily to get the presidential
   nomination, but it serves to weed most of the bad ones early on in the
   race  (Iowans are fallible, they have made mistakes too). It's the one
   time that Iowa has an influence on politics, and I often say it is Iowa's
   one good thing.  I think it's January 3. 

   Back to the protestors.  Their plan has been developing to \"occupy\"
   candidate's offices.  That really means protest in front of the offices,
   which if you think of all the little shitty strip malls you see around,
   one small section would be a campaign office.  They have no security, and
   allow a lot of access to candidates if they choose to campaign in Iowa.
   The Occupy Des Moines group are not at all planning to disrupt the
   Caucuses functioning.  Though I wouldn't be surprised if they protested
   outside caucus meeting places, or more likely, brought their signs and
   slogans in with them.  These people are experienced organizers (as it
   comes to des moines), and know that if they have a political impact, one
   of the best places to aim it is the Caucuses. 

   Now here comes \"Anonymous.\"  Those of you that read the Wired background
   know that their real effect has been in popularizing \"memes.\"  One of
   these was actually Occupy Wall Street- 
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/occupy-wall-street-anonymous-connection_n_1021665.html 
   The mob of computer users and protest movement have been running on
   parallel tracks for awhile, and have served to mutually reinforce each
   other.

   Whoever from Anonymous made this new video about the Caucuses has made an
   ass out of themselves.  The video recommends actually shutting down the
   Caucuses.  That is both tactically dumb for the Occupy movement, but also
   totally antithetical to its general ideology.  For example, a Caucus
   functions very similarly to the Occupy General Assembly meetings--direct
   participatory democracy. 

   The Des Moines organizers have already spoken up- saying they have nothing
   to do with this \"Anonymous\" bullshit.  I'm happy to see I left them with
   some sense of realism.  This little event is not going to matter very
   much, but it shows how uncoordinated Anonymous is. 

   See the article below, the video is at the link. 

   Video calls for shutting down Iowa caucuses; the group Anonymous claims
   responsibility
   Jason Clayworth
   4:55 PM, Nov 6, 2011
   http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/06/video-calls-for-shutting-down-iowa-caucuses-the-group-anonymous-claims-responsibility/

   An anarchist-style movement that has caught the attention of the FBI and
   taken credit for hacking into military and corporate websites has now
   claimed responsibility for creating a video that urges its supporters to
   shut down the Iowa caucuses.

   Local authorities say they are aware of the video, are preparing for
   possible action by the group and are in contact with the presidential
   campaigns about the issue.

   A computer-generated voice in the online video, which had received more
   than 1,600 views by Sunday evening, says, a**Both parties are desecrating
   the American democracy and committing crimes against humanity on behalf of
   the American people.a**

   It continues: a**The primaries and caucuses put on by these parties are
   part of an elaborate scam that deceives the public into voting for
   candidates that serve the private interests of the mega corporations.
   These parties have deliberately driven tens of millions of people into
   poverty.a**

   It later says: a**We are calling upon you to occupy the campaign offices
   of presidential headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa, on Dec. 27, and
   peacefully shut down the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3.a**

   The group is believed to have no centralized operational leadership and
   appears to be piggybacking on the Occupy Des Moines movement.

   But Occupy Des Moines leaders say therea**s a difference: The Iowa
   groupa**s planned sit-ins at presidential campaign headquarters are not
   intended to shut down the Iowa caucuses, they say. Rather, they want to
   target presidential candidates and big-moneyed corporations that activists
   say are pulling the strings behind the scenes.

   While there are similarities between the groupsa** beliefs, they are
   separate, Occupy Des Moines participants emphasized Sunday.

   a**I dona**t like it one bit,a** former Rep. Ed Fallon, a Des Moines
   Democrat and participant in Occupy Des Moines, said of the video on
   Sunday. a**It doesna**t fit with my definition of Gandhi- and Martin
   Luther King Jr.-style nonviolence. The core of nonviolent action is truth.
   And if you are doing everything you can to be truthful, then you should be
   up front and transparent. No distorting of your voice or hiding.a**

   FBI sees Anonymous as security threat

   The Anonymous movement has become a potential national security threat,
   according to an article published in September by the Associated Press.

   The FBI has carried out more than 75 raids and arrested at least 16 people
   this year in connection with illegal Internet hacking jobs for which the
   group has claimed responsibility, according to the AP. One demonstration
   disrupted traffic in San Francisco as a protest after the Bay Area Rapid
   Transit system shut off cell service to deter a planned protest of a
   police shooting on a subway platform.

   The group also claimed responsibility for hacking the online payment
   processing center PayPal after it had suspended WikiLeaksa** account after
   WikiLeaks published sensitive U.S. government intelligence documents, the
   AP reported.

   Three of the Iowa campaign headquarters of presidential candidates are in
   Urbandale a** those of Michele Bachmann, a U.S. representative from
   Minnesota; former Godfathera**s Pizza CEO Herman Cain; and former
   Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

   Urbandale police are aware of the video, and while they arena**t releasing
   details of their security plans, authorities will be prepared should the
   demonstrations take an illegal turn, Urbandale officer Randy Peterson said
   Sunday.

   a**Wea**ll just try to address any issue as they arise,a** Peterson said.

   Occupy movement: We dona**t plan to interfere with voting

   Occupy Des Moines, an offshoot of an anti-Wall Street protest group, last
   week announced plans to launch nonviolent sit-ins inside campaign offices
   in the final week before the Iowa caucuses. Some of the groupa**s members
   have said they expect large-scale arrests, but they have emphasized they
   do not plan to commit violence or interfere with voting.

   a**There might be some overlapa** in what the groups believe, a**but
   Anonymous speaks for themselves and the Occupy Movement speaks for
   itself,a** said David Goodner, a demonstrator who often speaks on behalf
   of Occupy Des Moines. a**Whether the public can understand that or not,
   Ia**m not sure, but for me therea**s a clear difference.a**

   State officials were preparing for a variety of public safety scenarios
   associated with the Iowa caucuses before the video was released, said John
   Benson, a public information officer for Iowaa**s Homeland Security and
   Emergency Management Division

   a**Obviously with the video that theya**ve put out and some of the other
   work theya**re doing, that certainly increases your overall awareness,a**
   Benson said. a**But to say wea**re going to do something specific in our
   planning process, we cana**t say that right now, but it certainly has our
   attention.a**

   Party leaders: Let caucuses proceed

   Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn said the partya**s state
   central committee will discuss the situation at its next meeting.

   a**Successive generations of Iowans of both political parties have worked
   awfully hard to make sure Iowans have this opportunity to participate in
   this first-in-the-nation caucus,a** Strawn said. a**I certainly will do
   anything in my power to keep outside agitators from ruining something that
   a lot of people have worked very hard for over a long period of time.a**

   The integrity of the Iowa caucuses would be eroded should attempts to shut
   them down be successful, said Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue
   Dvorsky.

   a**If anyone is coming and planning to make it so the participants of the
   caucus cannot have a civil and civic conversation, then of course that
   would erode the integrity of the caucuses, and it flies in the face of
   what the caucuses are,a** Dvorsky said. a**Theya**re the most basic
   long-standing tradition in this country of neighbors coming together to
   talk about political issues.a**

   She continued: a**Ia**m hoping Iowans can protect their ability to speak
   freely and respectfully with their neighbors.a**

   About Anonymous

   Anonymous emerged in 2003 from an Internet chat channel where members
   organized web incidents for their own amusement.

   By 2008, the prankster nature of Anonymous morphed into a**hacktivism,a**
   where members sabotaged websites and leaked confidential information for
   political purposes, according to law enforcement authorities.

   The group has no formal leadership and is generally considered to be more
   of a movement than an organization. As the name implies, its members
   generally dona**t identify themselves.

   The group has generally concentrated on Internet hacking. This summer, it
   claimed credit for hacking into a Booz Allen Hamilton website and leaking
   email addresses of 90,000 U.S. military personnel and hacking a Monsanto
   Co. website and releasing personal data on 2,500 employees.

   Sources: USA Today and the Associated Press

   --
   Sean Noonan
   Tactical Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967
   www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-10 14:15:47",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1063815_re-ct-anonymous-and-occupy-divergence-in-the-iowa-caucuses-.html","peter.zeihan@stratfor.com","mailto:ct@stratfor.com","ct@stratfor.com,sean.noonan@stratfor.com",""
1067796,"Re: USE ME Re: Discussion- Assange Arrested
","Take down the money.  Go after his infrastructure.   The tools we are
using to nail and de-construct Wiki are the same tools used to dismantle
and track aQ.  Thank Cheney & 43.  Big Brother owns his liberal
terrorist arse. 

Bayless Parsley wrote:
> On 12/7/10 7:43 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
>> *Here's my full set of thoughts.  This may be a little too informal
>> for our regular articles.  Hopefully this addresses the questions
>> that have already come up. 
>>
>> London Metropolitan police arrested Julian Assange, the founder and
>> public spokesman for WikiLeaks, at 0930 GMT December 7.  He is due to
>> appear in a court in Westminster soon to face charges of rape,
>> accused by two woman in Sweden.  Charges of sexual assault rarely are
>> passed through Interpol red notices, like this case, so this is no
>> doubt about trying to disrupt WikiLeaks release of government
>> documents.  While it's possible that Assange's arrest could disrupt
>> the long-term viability of WikiLeaks, it will not stop the release of
>> cables in the short-term and governments will now be concerned about
>> what the organization may release in revenge.
>>
>> Leadership is extremely important in non-governmental organizations
>> that have not institutionalized.  From terrorist grous  to charities
>> [LINK:
>> http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090923_death_top_indonesian_militant],
>> these organizations often ebb and flow along with their founders. 
>> WikiLeaks is a new organization that has a created a novel method for
>> an old practice- leaking confidential government information in an
>> attempt to influence politics.  Leaking will not go away with
>> Assange's arrest, but WikiLeaks might. 
>> *
>> Assange created Wikileaks with himself* as the only public face-- he
>> leads supports, drives donations, and faces criticism.  This has made
>> many in the organization unhappy, and some have left it after
>> disagreeing with him. *I don't think ppl are unhappy that he is the
>> supreme leader; i think they're unhappy b/c he's a dick head who
>> doesn't allow anyone else to voice any opinions whatsoever. there is
>> a difference.*  If Assange were to face charges in Sweden for sexual
>> assault or new charges in the UK or US and was found guilty,
>> WikiLeaks would still need someone to operate it.  Assange may have
>> someone waiting in the wings, but that is not evident. 
>>
>> WikiLeaks has also suffered logistically and as a brand.  As national
>> governments put pressure on its infrastructure, its websites have
>> been shut and most importantly its main source of funding- PayPal-
>> has closed WikiLeaks account. *Does MasterCard own PayPal? I saw
>> something in an OS article about MasterCard cutting off WikiLeaks'
>> accounts*
>> With such pressure and government monitoring, future leakers may be
>> too afraid of getting intercepted and go elsewhere.  Moreover, this
>> new set of documents have not worked out like Assange expected- the
>> *U.S. *public is not angry at the State Department, but many are
>> angry at Assange and his organization. 
>> *
>> Immediately following Assange's arrest, WikiLeaks spokesperson
>> **Kristinn Hrafnsson said that it would not stop the group's
>> operations. Indeed, whether Assange remains behind bars or not, it
>> most likely will not* stop the continued leaks of this large batch of
>> US State Department cables.  It also won't shut down WikiLeaks, which
>> still maintains its website *(albeit currently on a Swiss server,
>> after its initial URL's were deactivated..or something in computer
>> speak, I don't know)* and the ability to collect information from
>> leakers.  So in the short-term, WikiLeaks will maintain.  The
>> question remains if it has created a truly sustainable institutions--
>> one where leaders are replacable, members can adapt to changing
>> circumstance, and representatives can aid and inspire new leakers. 
>>
>> If Asange is extradited to Sweden and tried of one count of unlawful
>> coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape,
>> will he be able to maintain WikiLeaks image *define that image; I
>> would argue that this point is largely irrelevant. it's not like
>> there have been hundreds of leakers just dishing out info to him b/c
>> they admire him. it was Bradley Manning who did it in one fell
>> swoop*.?  That is hard to say, but growing public criticism of him
>> indicates his inability to grow WikiLeaks support base.  *the
>> following sentence does not flow with the previous parts of this
>> para* Western govrenments also fear whatever is contained in his ___
>> file, for which he threatens to release an encryption key if
>> something happens to him.  WikiLeaks has already released its most
>> damaging documents *this is our theory; we don't know if this is true
>> or not *-- its attempt to get public attention-- and they haven't
>> amounted to much.  This new file likely contains no more damaging
>> information, but instead is full of names.  The names of sources who
>> will be at risk and those of diplomats, military or intelligence
>> officers who could lose their jobs. 
>>
>> WikiLeaks is now facing a conundrum that all new organizations
>> do--the ability to maintain and transition leadership through adverse
>> circumstances.  Maybe Assange will be released quickly-- STRATFOR
>> cannot speak to the veracity of the charges against him-- but if he
>> isn't, WikiLeaks will struggle to survive. 
>>
>>
>> On 12/7/10 6:36 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:
>>> I would imagine the most politically \"exciting\" stuff has been
>>> published (much of which we already knew) but some of the less sexy
>>> things may be more damaging when released or released uncensored b/c
>>> it burns sources and people's careers (a few people have already
>>> lost their jobs in western countries...what about sources in less
>>> democratic countries)
>>>
>>> On 12/7/10 5:18 AM, Emre Dogru wrote:
>>>> I am not clear about your argument in the last line. Why this
>>>> arrest could disrupt long-term viability of Wikileaks? I would say
>>>> the opposite, that there might be short-term disruptions (latest
>>>> release was two days ago) but Wikileaks will work in the long-term.
>>>> They already have over 250K documents and if they release them at
>>>> the same pace, Wikileaks will have very long-term viability. Also,
>>>> Ben's point below about possibly backed up documents is worth
>>>> considering. 
>>>>
>>>> One more question. How do we now that Wikileaks has more sensitive
>>>> information that governments should be concerned about as a
>>>> revenge? Recall George's initial argument that they probably
>>>> published most sensitive information at the very beginning to draw
>>>> attention. 
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *From: *\"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
>>>> *To: *\"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
>>>> *Sent: *Tuesday, December 7, 2010 12:42:49 PM
>>>> *Subject: *Discussion- Assange Arrested
>>>>
>>>> We had the discussion below on Friday when it was first suggested
>>>> that Assange would be arrested.  Here's a bit more:
>>>>
>>>> London Metropolitan police arrested Julian Assange, the founder and
>>>> public spokesman for WikiLeaks, at 0930 GMT December 7.  He is due
>>>> to appear in a court in Westminster soon to face charges of rape,
>>>> accused by two woman in Sweden.  Charges of sexual assault rarely
>>>> are passed through Interpol red notices, like this case, so this is
>>>> no doubt about trying to disrupt WikiLeaks release of government
>>>> documents.  While it's possible that Assange's arrest could disrupt
>>>> the long-term viability of WikiLeaks, it will not stop the release
>>>> of cables in the short-term and governments will now be concerned
>>>> about what the organization may release in revenge.
>>>>
>>>> see discussion below.  (revenge = that encrypted 'security' file)
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *From: *\"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
>>>> *To: *\"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
>>>> *Sent: *Friday, December 3, 2010 10:23:51 AM
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [OS] UK/US/AUSTRALIA/CT- WikiLeaks back online,
>>>> Assange close        to arrest
>>>>
>>>> yes, most likely would not stop these.  but it could disrupt
>>>> whatever might be next. 
>>>>
>>>> Also all this trouble with internet hosting could serve to slow
>>>> down this set of leaks.  And maybe a combination of wikileaks
>>>> arrest and server shutdowns could stop it. 
>>>>
>>>> On 12/3/10 9:20 AM, Ben West wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     If Assange is running the show and his staff isn't as confident
>>>>     as he is, then arresting him now could very well stop the flow
>>>>     of cables. But all it takes is one person to keep it going - or
>>>>     just dump them all at once if it gets too dicey, and these
>>>>     files have been very widely distributed so far. I can't imagine
>>>>     anyone reclaiming all the documents now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On 12/3/2010 8:54 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         yeah also remember there was an article by nytimes i think
>>>>         that alot of people on his staff were uncomfortable with
>>>>         the way things were playing out, so without him there they
>>>>         may loose nerve or come to their better senses
>>>>
>>>>         On 12/3/10 8:48 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>             Yes, like Fred's source pointed out--arrest and trial
>>>>             would just be a political circus.  It would probably
>>>>             not disrupt wikileaks.  BUT, occasonally a leader makes
>>>>             an organization, and maybe no one as capable will be
>>>>             willing to fill his shoes.  Or at least, won't be able
>>>>             to get as much pubilicity for wikileaks.  As you also
>>>>             said, it could tarnish both Assange's and Wikileaks'
>>>>             repution.  That coul dserve to discredit and undermine
>>>>             the group.  Maybe people would be less inclined to leak
>>>>             to it, or the public would be less inclined to pay
>>>>             attention--or more importantly support wikileaks
>>>>             financially.  Though I admit the chance of this causing
>>>>             the public to pay less attention is minimal, and in
>>>>             fact would probably increase attention on the guy. 
>>>>
>>>>             (though personally, getting a rapist off the street is
>>>>             getting a rapist off the street.  Also, his mom owns a
>>>>             puppet theater...)
>>>>
>>>>             On 12/3/10 8:38 AM, Ben West wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                 What would the overall significance of his arrest
>>>>                 be? It's likely that the files are backed up
>>>>                 elsewhere and that someone else could give the
>>>>                 go-ahead for releasing them (that could very well
>>>>                 already be the case) and if his back-ups are
>>>>                 anything like Assange, they would welcome the
>>>>                 publicity that would come to them by filling his
>>>>                 shoes.
>>>>
>>>>                 If the British got custody of him, they could
>>>>                 conduct searches or evidence that would support
>>>>                 rape charges and, if they happened to find material
>>>>                 regarding the leaks, that could lead to new
>>>>                 charges. But this has been coming for a while, and
>>>>                 if Assange was smart, he would have turned over any
>>>>                 really sensitive stuff by now, which would decrease
>>>>                 the likelihood of police finding anything juicy.
>>>>
>>>>                 Seems to me that all this really does is tarnish
>>>>                 his reputation and make him look like scum. It
>>>>                 provides some public distraction from all the
>>>>                 leaked documents, but doesn't undermine their
>>>>                 impact - just undermines the character of the
>>>>                 person who facilitated the leaks.
>>>>
>>>>                 any other thoughts?
>>>>
>>>>                 On 12/3/2010 7:40 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                     I may have sent this out before- Assange
>>>>                     walking out of a CNN interview.
>>>>
>>>>                     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lisa9XTRLb4
>>>>
>>>>                     just shows how far his head is up his ass. 
>>>>
>>>>                     On 12/3/10 7:32 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                         looks like Assange is in the UK and they
>>>>                         might actually roll on him.
>>>>
>>>>                         On 12/3/10 7:31 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                             *OG source
>>>>                             *
>>>>                             Net closes on Assange: arrest by
>>>>                             British police expected in days*
>>>>                             By Mark Hughes and Jerome Taylor
>>>>                             Friday, 3 December 2010
>>>>                             http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/net-closes-on-assange-arrest-by-british-police-expected-in-days-2149805.html
>>>>
>>>>                             Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder,
>>>>                             is expected to be arrested in the
>>>>                             coming days after Swedish prosecutors
>>>>                             filed a new warrant with British
>>>>                             authorities.
>>>>
>>>>                             The Independent revealed yesterday that
>>>>                             a procedural error with the European
>>>>                             Arrest Warrant had delayed the arrest
>>>>                             of the 39-year-old Australian, who is
>>>>                             wanted in Sweden over sexual
>>>>                             allegations but has been in England
>>>>                             since October.
>>>>
>>>>                             Police in Gothenburg claim they have
>>>>                             now submitted a fresh warrant to the
>>>>                             Serious Organised Crime Agency. Soca is
>>>>                             expected to instruct Scotland Yard to
>>>>                             arrest Mr Assange and have him appear
>>>>                             before an extradition hearing â€“
>>>>                             although as of last night the
>>>>                             Metropolitan Police had yet to receive
>>>>                             the warrant.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                             Police sources have previously said
>>>>                             that they received a letter from Mr
>>>>                             Assange's UK-based lawyer, Mark
>>>>                             Stephens, containing information about
>>>>                             how to contact Mr Assange should they
>>>>                             need to.
>>>>
>>>>                             Details of the new arrest warrant came
>>>>                             as a last-ditch attempt to have the
>>>>                             allegations against Mr Assange dropped
>>>>                             failed. Sweden's highest court upheld
>>>>                             the arrest order and refused to let him
>>>>                             appeal against a lower court's ruling.
>>>>
>>>>                             Last night, Mr Assange's family spoke
>>>>                             of their fears for his safety after
>>>>                             increasingly shrill statements from
>>>>                             American commentators who have called
>>>>                             for his assassination. His mother,
>>>>                             Christine Assange, said \"the forces
>>>>                             that he's challenging are too big\".
>>>>
>>>>                             The arrest warrant filed with Soca
>>>>                             states that he was wanted on suspicion
>>>>                             of rape, sexual molestation and
>>>>                             unlawful coercion. But Soca requested a
>>>>                             new warrant. A spokeswoman for the
>>>>                             Swedish National Police Board told the
>>>>                             BBC that the original one had been
>>>>                             refused because it listed only the
>>>>                             maximum penalty for the most serious
>>>>                             crime alleged, rather than for all of
>>>>                             the crimes.
>>>>
>>>>                             When the arrest is made, Mr Assange
>>>>                             will be taken before an extradition
>>>>                             hearing at Westminster magistrates'
>>>>                             court. If he refuses to be extradited,
>>>>                             a judge will preside over an
>>>>                             extradition hearing and will rule
>>>>                             whether he should be sent to Sweden or
>>>>                             discharged.
>>>>
>>>>                             Last night, Mr Stephens said he would
>>>>                             challenge any arrest in British courts.
>>>>                             \"The process in this case has been so
>>>>                             utterly irregular that the chances of a
>>>>                             valid arrest warrant being submitted to
>>>>                             me are very small,\" he said. Mr
>>>>                             Stephens has accused Swedish
>>>>                             prosecutors of launching a witch-hunt
>>>>                             against his client, who strongly denies
>>>>                             the rape allegations and says he is
>>>>                             being smeared because of the exposÃ©s
>>>>                             published by his website.
>>>>
>>>>                             He has maintained that Swedish
>>>>                             prosecutors have yet to provide any
>>>>                             evidence against Mr Assange and have
>>>>                             ignored his requests to meet with them.
>>>>                             He also expressed concerns at the way
>>>>                             the UK and Swedish authorities were
>>>>                             handling the case.
>>>>
>>>>                             \"I feel like I am sitting in the middle
>>>>                             of a surreal Swedish fairytale,\" he
>>>>                             said. \"The trolls keep threatening to
>>>>                             come on and keep making noises off
>>>>                             stage. But at the moment, no appearance
>>>>                             from them.\"
>>>>
>>>>                             In an interview with an Australian
>>>>                             newspaper, Mr Assange's mother defended
>>>>                             her son and lambasted hawks in the US
>>>>                             who have called for his death.
>>>>
>>>>                             Ms Assange, who runs a puppet theatre
>>>>                             in Noosa, a Queensland beach resort,
>>>>                             defended her son's decision to publish
>>>>                             thousands of classified US documents on
>>>>                             the website. \"He sees what he's doing
>>>>                             as doing a good thing in the world â€“
>>>>                             fighting baddies, if you like,\" she
>>>>                             told Queensland's Courier-Mail.
>>>>
>>>>                             Ms Assange â€“ who does not even own a
>>>>                             computer â€“ described her son as a hero
>>>>                             of the internet. But she added that she
>>>>                             feared he had \"gotten too smart for
>>>>                             himself\", saying: \"I'm concerned it's
>>>>                             gotten too big and the forces that he's
>>>>                             challenging are too big.\" She did not
>>>>                             want him \"hunted down and jailed\".
>>>>
>>>>                             On 12/3/10 7:24 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                                 *WikiLeaks back online, Assange
>>>>                                 close to arrest*
>>>>
>>>>                                 Updated 2 hours 45 minutes ago
>>>>                                 http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/03/3084384.htm
>>>>
>>>>                                 The WikiLeaks website is back
>>>>                                 online with a new Swiss address
>>>>                                 after its previous domain name was
>>>>                                 killed.
>>>>
>>>>                                 The whistleblower website's
>>>>                                 original domain host, EveryDNS.net,
>>>>                                 says it terminated its services
>>>>                                 because Wikileaks had been coming
>>>>                                 under \"massive\" cyber attacks.
>>>>
>>>>                                 The new address - wikileaks.ch -
>>>>                                 was put online six hours after the
>>>>                                 original site wikileaks.org was killed.
>>>>
>>>>                                 An internet trace of the new domain
>>>>                                 name suggests that the site itself
>>>>                                 is still hosted in Sweden and in
>>>>                                 France.
>>>>
>>>>                                 Web users accessing the
>>>>                                 wikileaks.ch address are directed
>>>>                                 to a page under the URL
>>>>                                 http://213.251.145.96/ which gives
>>>>                                 them access to the former site,
>>>>                                 including a massive trove of leaked
>>>>                                 US diplomatic traffic.
>>>>
>>>>                                 The WikiLeaks website released more
>>>>                                 than 250,000 secret US diplomatic
>>>>                                 cables this week, which has left
>>>>                                 governments around the world
>>>>                                 scrambling to deal with the fallout.
>>>>
>>>>                                 Meanwhile, British media reports
>>>>                                 Scotland Yard could arrest the
>>>>                                 site's founder Julian Assange
>>>>                                 within days.
>>>>
>>>>                                 Prosecutors in Sweden want to
>>>>                                 question Mr Assange over alleged
>>>>                                 sex crimes involving two women
>>>>                                 during a visit to Stockholm in August.
>>>>
>>>>                                 Mr Assange, who was born in
>>>>                                 Australia, has not been charged and
>>>>                                 he denies the allegations.
>>>>
>>>>                                 He reportedly avoided arrest this
>>>>                                 week because Swedish authorities
>>>>                                 had filled out an Interpol red
>>>>                                 notice incorrectly.
>>>>
>>>>                                 Britain's Independent newspaper
>>>>                                 reports that police know Mr
>>>>                                 Assange's whereabouts in England
>>>>                                 and are expected to arrest him in
>>>>                                 the coming days.
>>>>
>>>>                                 Mr Assange's Stockholm-based lawyer
>>>>                                 Bjoern Hurtig says he will fight
>>>>                                 his client's extradition to Sweden
>>>>                                 in the event of his arrest.
>>>>
>>>>                                 \"Together with my British colleague
>>>>                                 Mark Stephens and international
>>>>                                 experts, we will fight the
>>>>                                 extradition warrants,\" he said.
>>>>
>>>>                                 A WikiLeaks spokesman says Mr
>>>>                                 Assange has to remain out of the
>>>>                                 public eye because he is facing
>>>>                                 assassination threats following the
>>>>                                 whistleblowing website's
>>>>                                 publication of the secret cables.
>>>>
>>>>                                 Several US senators have also
>>>>                                 called for him to be charged with
>>>>                                 espionage.
>>>>
>>>>                                 Senator Dianne Feinstein says the
>>>>                                 leak is a serious breach of
>>>>                                 national security and action must
>>>>                                 be taken.
>>>>
>>>>                                 \"We have reviewed the espionage
>>>>                                 statutes and we believe it
>>>>                                 qualifies,\" she said.
>>>>
>>>>                                 \"That this, allowed to be carried
>>>>                                 out, incapacitates this nation to
>>>>                                 carry out business.\"
>>>>                                 -- 
>>>>
>>>>                                 Sean Noonan
>>>>
>>>>                                 Tactical Analyst
>>>>
>>>>                                 Office: +1 512-279-9479
>>>>
>>>>                                 Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>>>
>>>>                                 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>>>
>>>>                                 www.stratfor.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                             -- 
>>>>
>>>>                             Sean Noonan
>>>>
>>>>                             Tactical Analyst
>>>>
>>>>                             Office: +1 512-279-9479
>>>>
>>>>                             Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>>>
>>>>                             Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>>>
>>>>                             www.stratfor.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                         -- 
>>>>
>>>>                         Sean Noonan
>>>>
>>>>                         Tactical Analyst
>>>>
>>>>                         Office: +1 512-279-9479
>>>>
>>>>                         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>>>
>>>>                         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>>>
>>>>                         www.stratfor.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                     -- 
>>>>
>>>>                     Sean Noonan
>>>>
>>>>                     Tactical Analyst
>>>>
>>>>                     Office: +1 512-279-9479
>>>>
>>>>                     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>>>
>>>>                     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>>>
>>>>                     www.stratfor.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                 -- 
>>>>                 Ben West
>>>>                 Tactical Analyst
>>>>                 STRATFOR
>>>>                 Austin, TX
>>>>                                 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             -- 
>>>>
>>>>             Sean Noonan
>>>>
>>>>             Tactical Analyst
>>>>
>>>>             Office: +1 512-279-9479
>>>>
>>>>             Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>>>
>>>>             Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>>>
>>>>             www.stratfor.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         -- 
>>>>         Michael Wilson
>>>>         Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
>>>>         Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
>>>>         Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com
>>>>
>>>>                     
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     -- 
>>>>     Ben West
>>>>     Tactical Analyst
>>>>     STRATFOR
>>>>     Austin, TX
>>>>               
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>>
>>>> Sean Noonan
>>>>
>>>> Tactical Analyst
>>>>
>>>> Office: +1 512-279-9479
>>>>
>>>> Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>>>
>>>> Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>>>
>>>> www.stratfor.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Sean Noonan
>>>> Tactical Analyst
>>>> Office: +1 512-279-9479
>>>> Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>>> Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>>> www.stratfor.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> --
>>>> Emre Dogru
>>>> STRATFOR  
>>>> Cell: +90.532.465.7514
>>>> Fixed: +1.512.279.9468  
>>>> emre.dogru@stratfor.com  
>>>> www.stratfor.com
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Michael Wilson
>>> Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
>>> Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
>>> Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com
>>>
>>>       
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> Sean Noonan
>>
>> Tactical Analyst
>>
>> Office: +1 512-279-9479
>>
>> Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>
>> Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>
>> www.stratfor.com
>>
>
","2010-12-07 14:55:40",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1067796_re-use-me-re-discussion-assange-arrested-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1068170,"Re: Assange is off the hook...
","   It is about rape. They asked him to use a condom, but he apparently likes
   unprotected sex.

   Sweden has very low threshold for what constitutes rape by the way,
   according to a lawyer friend.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Chris Farnham\" <chris.farnham@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:42:16 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   Is it possible to revoke some one's citizenship on the grounds of them
   being a total dickhead? 
   I don't care about the other leaks but the ones he has made that
   potentially damage Australian interests upset me. 
   If I thought I could switch this dickhead off without getting done I don't
   think I'd have too much of a problem.
   BTW, close family friend in Sweden who knows the girl that is pressing
   charges tells me that there is absolutely nothing behind it other than
   prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves. My friend
   speaks rather disparagingly about the girl who is claiming molestation. I
   also think the whole rape thing is incorrect for if I remember correctly
   rape was never the charge. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:23:03 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   What a douche.

   And I just want to be clear here... I have no problem with the leaks. I
   think they're great. And I think it may be good on some level to have
   stuff like this come out once in a while. What I can't stand is A) his ego
   trip and B) his clear anti-Americanism. Take the time to read the intro to
   Cablegate when you get the chance. This guy hates America more than OBL.

   What I love, however, is how nobody in the U.S. is mad about the cables.
   Hell, I have a better opinion of State Department diplomats now than I did
   before the cables. They actually said a few smart things here and there. I
   actually gave them a tip of my hat.

   I want to see him try to take on the Russians. He'd be going bald in an
   Iceland hospital within days.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:11:39 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   should we change our Stratfor motto now?
   Predictive, insightful intelligence...in a post-Cablegate world.
   On Dec 5, 2010, at 10:05 PM, Marko Papic wrote:

     This guy needs to take pills for his ego:

      He suggested, not for the first time, that he believes his document
      service has had a profound effect on world history: a**I believe
      geopolitics will be separated into pre- and post-Cablegate phases.a**

     Also, I have a question about this part (this is Assange's lawyer saying
     how Wikileaks would release full versions of all files -- including
     names of spies, etc. -- if harmed):

      WikiLeaks, Mr. Stephens said, has a**been subject to cyberattacks and
      censorship around the world and they need to protect themselves ... This
      is what they believe to be a thermonuclear device in the information
      age.a**

     Let's say the following scenario happens. Assange is arrested and
     extradicted to Sweden to face rape charges. Wikileaks releases the
     password to the insurance files. Would he not then be directly
     endangering U.S. and other country intelligence professionals? Would it
     not then be possible to prosecute him for espionage? 

     -- 
     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
     Marko Papic
     Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
     STRATFOR
     700 Lavaca Street - 900
     Austin, Texas
     78701 USA
     P: + 1-512-744-4094
     marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-06 05:57:59",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1068170_re-assange-is-off-the-hook-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1072269,"Re: Assange is off the hook...
","      a**I believe geopolitics will be separated into pre- and post-Cablegate
      phases.a**

   I think we should write a diary tomorrow -- barring anything truly
   important -- on why this dickhead is wrong.

   I volunteer.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"George Friedman\" <friedman@att.blackberry.net>
   To: \"Analysts\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:10:50 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   Think of this. He is saying he is dedicated to revealing the truth.
   However he will not reveal the truth if he is let off on rape charges.

   What a piece of work.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Marko Papic <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 22:05:28 -0600 (CST)
   To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Assange is off the hook...
   This guy needs to take pills for his ego:

      He suggested, not for the first time, that he believes his document
      service has had a profound effect on world history: a**I believe
      geopolitics will be separated into pre- and post-Cablegate phases.a**

   Also, I have a question about this part (this is Assange's lawyer saying
   how Wikileaks would release full versions of all files -- including names
   of spies, etc. -- if harmed):

      WikiLeaks, Mr. Stephens said, has a**been subject to cyberattacks and
      censorship around the world and they need to protect themselves ... This
      is what they believe to be a thermonuclear device in the information
      age.a**

   Let's say the following scenario happens. Assange is arrested and
   extradicted to Sweden to face rape charges. Wikileaks releases the
   password to the insurance files. Would he not then be directly endangering
   U.S. and other country intelligence professionals? Would it not then be
   possible to prosecute him for espionage?

   --

   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

   Marko Papic

   Geopol Analyst - Eurasia

   STRATFOR

   700 Lavaca Street - 900

   Austin, Texas

   78701 USA

   P: + 1-512-744-4094

   marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-06 06:17:01",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1072269_re-assange-is-off-the-hook-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com,friedman@att.blackberry.net",""
1074383,"Re: Discussion- Assange Arrested
","   Fred,
    what would be the maximum punishment for the charges you listed? has
   there been any sources that has been killed because of wikileaks?

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com>
   To: \"nathan hughes\" <nathan.hughes@stratfor.com>, \"Analyst List\"
   <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2010 7:38:52 AM
   Subject: Re: Discussion- Assange Arrested

   Will take weeks for extradition, unless he waves the process.

   DOJ (Holder) won't seek prosecution on their own, but look for the GOP
   (Congress) to press for criminal prosecution.

   Be easy to indict.

   I would pursue Conspiracy and Political Terrorism charges and declassify
   the death of a source someone which I could link to Wiki.
    

   Nate Hughes wrote:
   > Other thought is that I kind of feel like a lot of people were coming
   > around to recognizing his astonishing douchebaggery and he was by this
   > point undermining himself and his organization. If he does get tied up
   > in the legal system, does he come out screaming all the louder? And if
   > he does somehow get imprisoned, does he have the potential in
   > incarceration to actually become the sort of inspirational,
   > martryr-like (forgive the euphamism) figure that he always imagined
   > himself to be in the free world?
   > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
   > *From: * Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   > *Date: *Tue, 7 Dec 2010 04:42:58 -0600 (CST)
   > *To: *Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
   > *ReplyTo: * Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   > *Subject: *Discussion- Assange Arrested
   >
   > We had the discussion below on Friday when it was first suggested that
   > Assange would be arrested.  Here's a bit more:
   >
   > London Metropolitan police arrested Julian Assange, the founder and
   > public spokesman for WikiLeaks, at 0930 GMT December 7.  He is due to
   > appear in a court in Westminster soon to face charges of rape, accused
   > by two woman in Sweden.  Charges of sexual assault rarely are passed
   > through Interpol red notices, like this case, so this is no doubt
   > about trying to disrupt WikiLeaks release of government documents.
   > While it's possible that Assange's arrest could disrupt the long-term
   > viability of WikiLeaks, it will not stop the release of cables in the
   > short-term and governments will now be concerned about what the
   > organization may release in revenge.
   >
   > see discussion below.  (revenge = that encrypted 'security' file)
   >
   > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
   > *From: *\"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   > *To: *\"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   > *Sent: *Friday, December 3, 2010 10:23:51 AM
   > *Subject: *Re: [OS] UK/US/AUSTRALIA/CT- WikiLeaks back online, Assange
   > close        to arrest
   >
   > yes, most likely would not stop these.  but it could disrupt whatever
   > might be next.
   >
   > Also all this trouble with internet hosting could serve to slow down
   > this set of leaks.  And maybe a combination of wikileaks arrest and
   > server shutdowns could stop it.
   >
   > On 12/3/10 9:20 AM, Ben West wrote:
   >
   >     If Assange is running the show and his staff isn't as confident as
   >     he is, then arresting him now could very well stop the flow of
   >     cables. But all it takes is one person to keep it going - or just
   >     dump them all at once if it gets too dicey, and these files have
   >     been very widely distributed so far. I can't imagine anyone
   >     reclaiming all the documents now.
   >
   >
   >     On 12/3/2010 8:54 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:
   >
   >         yeah also remember there was an article by nytimes i think
   >         that alot of people on his staff were uncomfortable with the
   >         way things were playing out, so without him there they may
   >         loose nerve or come to their better senses
   >
   >         On 12/3/10 8:48 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
   >
   >             Yes, like Fred's source pointed out--arrest and trial
   >             would just be a political circus.  It would probably not
   >             disrupt wikileaks.  BUT, occasonally a leader makes an
   >             organization, and maybe no one as capable will be willing
   >             to fill his shoes.  Or at least, won't be able to get as
   >             much pubilicity for wikileaks.  As you also said, it could
   >             tarnish both Assange's and Wikileaks' repution.  That coul
   >             dserve to discredit and undermine the group.  Maybe people
   >             would be less inclined to leak to it, or the public would
   >             be less inclined to pay attention--or more importantly
   >             support wikileaks financially.  Though I admit the chance
   >             of this causing the public to pay less attention is
   >             minimal, and in fact would probably increase attention on
   >             the guy.
   >
   >             (though personally, getting a rapist off the street is
   >             getting a rapist off the street.  Also, his mom owns a
   >             puppet theater...)
   >
   >             On 12/3/10 8:38 AM, Ben West wrote:
   >
   >                 What would the overall significance of his arrest be?
   >                 It's likely that the files are backed up elsewhere and
   >                 that someone else could give the go-ahead for
   >                 releasing them (that could very well already be the
   >                 case) and if his back-ups are anything like Assange,
   >                 they would welcome the publicity that would come to
   >                 them by filling his shoes.
   >
   >                 If the British got custody of him, they could conduct
   >                 searches or evidence that would support rape charges
   >                 and, if they happened to find material regarding the
   >                 leaks, that could lead to new charges. But this has
   >                 been coming for a while, and if Assange was smart, he
   >                 would have turned over any really sensitive stuff by
   >                 now, which would decrease the likelihood of police
   >                 finding anything juicy.
   >
   >                 Seems to me that all this really does is tarnish his
   >                 reputation and make him look like scum. It provides
   >                 some public distraction from all the leaked documents,
   >                 but doesn't undermine their impact - just undermines
   >                 the character of the person who facilitated the leaks.
   >
   >                 any other thoughts?
   >
   >                 On 12/3/2010 7:40 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
   >
   >                     I may have sent this out before- Assange walking
   >                     out of a CNN interview.
   >
   >                     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lisa9XTRLb4
   >
   >                     just shows how far his head is up his ass.
   >
   >                     On 12/3/10 7:32 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
   >
   >                         looks like Assange is in the UK and they might
   >                         actually roll on him.
   >
   >                         On 12/3/10 7:31 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
   >
   >                             *OG source
   >                             *
   >                             Net closes on Assange: arrest by British
   >                             police expected in days*
   >                             By Mark Hughes and Jerome Taylor
   >                             Friday, 3 December 2010
   >                            
   http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/net-closes-on-assange-arrest-by-british-police-expected-in-days-2149805.html
   >
   >                             Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, is
   >                             expected to be arrested in the coming days
   >                             after Swedish prosecutors filed a new
   >                             warrant with British authorities.
   >
   >                             The Independent revealed yesterday that a
   >                             procedural error with the European Arrest
   >                             Warrant had delayed the arrest of the
   >                             39-year-old Australian, who is wanted in
   >                             Sweden over sexual allegations but has
   >                             been in England since October.
   >
   >                             Police in Gothenburg claim they have now
   >                             submitted a fresh warrant to the Serious
   >                             Organised Crime Agency. Soca is expected
   >                             to instruct Scotland Yard to arrest Mr
   >                             Assange and have him appear before an
   >                             extradition hearing a** although as of last
   >                             night the Metropolitan Police had yet to
   >                             receive the warrant.
   >
   >
   >                             Police sources have previously said that
   >                             they received a letter from Mr Assange's
   >                             UK-based lawyer, Mark Stephens, containing
   >                             information about how to contact Mr
   >                             Assange should they need to.
   >
   >                             Details of the new arrest warrant came as
   >                             a last-ditch attempt to have the
   >                             allegations against Mr Assange dropped
   >                             failed. Sweden's highest court upheld the
   >                             arrest order and refused to let him appeal
   >                             against a lower court's ruling.
   >
   >                             Last night, Mr Assange's family spoke of
   >                             their fears for his safety after
   >                             increasingly shrill statements from
   >                             American commentators who have called for
   >                             his assassination. His mother, Christine
   >                             Assange, said \"the forces that he's
   >                             challenging are too big\".
   >
   >                             The arrest warrant filed with Soca states
   >                             that he was wanted on suspicion of rape,
   >                             sexual molestation and unlawful coercion.
   >                             But Soca requested a new warrant. A
   >                             spokeswoman for the Swedish National
   >                             Police Board told the BBC that the
   >                             original one had been refused because it
   >                             listed only the maximum penalty for the
   >                             most serious crime alleged, rather than
   >                             for all of the crimes.
   >
   >                             When the arrest is made, Mr Assange will
   >                             be taken before an extradition hearing at
   >                             Westminster magistrates' court. If he
   >                             refuses to be extradited, a judge will
   >                             preside over an extradition hearing and
   >                             will rule whether he should be sent to
   >                             Sweden or discharged.
   >
   >                             Last night, Mr Stephens said he would
   >                             challenge any arrest in British courts.
   >                             \"The process in this case has been so
   >                             utterly irregular that the chances of a
   >                             valid arrest warrant being submitted to me
   >                             are very small,\" he said. Mr Stephens has
   >                             accused Swedish prosecutors of launching a
   >                             witch-hunt against his client, who
   >                             strongly denies the rape allegations and
   >                             says he is being smeared because of the
   >                             exposA(c)s published by his website.
   >
   >                             He has maintained that Swedish prosecutors
   >                             have yet to provide any evidence against
   >                             Mr Assange and have ignored his requests
   >                             to meet with them. He also expressed
   >                             concerns at the way the UK and Swedish
   >                             authorities were handling the case.
   >
   >                             \"I feel like I am sitting in the middle of
   >                             a surreal Swedish fairytale,\" he said.
   >                             \"The trolls keep threatening to come on
   >                             and keep making noises off stage. But at
   >                             the moment, no appearance from them.\"
   >
   >                             In an interview with an Australian
   >                             newspaper, Mr Assange's mother defended
   >                             her son and lambasted hawks in the US who
   >                             have called for his death.
   >
   >                             Ms Assange, who runs a puppet theatre in
   >                             Noosa, a Queensland beach resort, defended
   >                             her son's decision to publish thousands of
   >                             classified US documents on the website.
   >                             \"He sees what he's doing as doing a good
   >                             thing in the world a** fighting baddies, if
   >                             you like,\" she told Queensland's
   Courier-Mail.
   >
   >                             Ms Assange a** who does not even own a
   >                             computer a** described her son as a hero of
   >                             the internet. But she added that she
   >                             feared he had \"gotten too smart for
   >                             himself\", saying: \"I'm concerned it's
   >                             gotten too big and the forces that he's
   >                             challenging are too big.\" She did not want
   >                             him \"hunted down and jailed\".
   >
   >                             On 12/3/10 7:24 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:
   >
   >                                 *WikiLeaks back online, Assange close
   >                                 to arrest*
   >
   >                                 Updated 2 hours 45 minutes ago
   >                                
   http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/03/3084384.htm
   >
   >                                 The WikiLeaks website is back online
   >                                 with a new Swiss address after its
   >                                 previous domain name was killed.
   >
   >                                 The whistleblower website's original
   >                                 domain host, EveryDNS.net, says it
   >                                 terminated its services because
   >                                 Wikileaks had been coming under
   >                                 \"massive\" cyber attacks.
   >
   >                                 The new address - wikileaks.ch - was
   >                                 put online six hours after the
   >                                 original site wikileaks.org was killed.
   >
   >                                 An internet trace of the new domain
   >                                 name suggests that the site itself is
   >                                 still hosted in Sweden and in France.
   >
   >                                 Web users accessing the wikileaks.ch
   >                                 address are directed to a page under
   >                                 the URL http://213.251.145.96/ which
   >                                 gives them access to the former site,
   >                                 including a massive trove of leaked US
   >                                 diplomatic traffic.
   >
   >                                 The WikiLeaks website released more
   >                                 than 250,000 secret US diplomatic
   >                                 cables this week, which has left
   >                                 governments around the world
   >                                 scrambling to deal with the fallout.
   >
   >                                 Meanwhile, British media reports
   >                                 Scotland Yard could arrest the site's
   >                                 founder Julian Assange within days.
   >
   >                                 Prosecutors in Sweden want to question
   >                                 Mr Assange over alleged sex crimes
   >                                 involving two women during a visit to
   >                                 Stockholm in August.
   >
   >                                 Mr Assange, who was born in Australia,
   >                                 has not been charged and he denies the
   >                                 allegations.
   >
   >                                 He reportedly avoided arrest this week
   >                                 because Swedish authorities had filled
   >                                 out an Interpol red notice incorrectly.
   >
   >                                 Britain's Independent newspaper
   >                                 reports that police know Mr Assange's
   >                                 whereabouts in England and are
   >                                 expected to arrest him in the coming
   days.
   >
   >                                 Mr Assange's Stockholm-based lawyer
   >                                 Bjoern Hurtig says he will fight his
   >                                 client's extradition to Sweden in the
   >                                 event of his arrest.
   >
   >                                 \"Together with my British colleague
   >                                 Mark Stephens and international
   >                                 experts, we will fight the extradition
   >                                 warrants,\" he said.
   >
   >                                 A WikiLeaks spokesman says Mr Assange
   >                                 has to remain out of the public eye
   >                                 because he is facing assassination
   >                                 threats following the whistleblowing
   >                                 website's publication of the secret
   >                                 cables.
   >
   >                                 Several US senators have also called
   >                                 for him to be charged with espionage.
   >
   >                                 Senator Dianne Feinstein says the leak
   >                                 is a serious breach of national
   >                                 security and action must be taken.
   >
   >                                 \"We have reviewed the espionage
   >                                 statutes and we believe it qualifies,\"
   >                                 she said.
   >
   >                                 \"That this, allowed to be carried out,
   >                                 incapacitates this nation to carry out
   >                                 business.\"
   >                                 --
   >
   >                                 Sean Noonan
   >
   >                                 Tactical Analyst
   >
   >                                 Office: +1 512-279-9479
   >
   >                                 Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
   >
   >                                 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   >
   >                                 www.stratfor.com
   >
   >
   >                             --
   >
   >                             Sean Noonan
   >
   >                             Tactical Analyst
   >
   >                             Office: +1 512-279-9479
   >
   >                             Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
   >
   >                             Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   >
   >                             www.stratfor.com
   >
   >
   >                         --
   >
   >                         Sean Noonan
   >
   >                         Tactical Analyst
   >
   >                         Office: +1 512-279-9479
   >
   >                         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
   >
   >                         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   >
   >                         www.stratfor.com
   >
   >
   >                     --
   >
   >                     Sean Noonan
   >
   >                     Tactical Analyst
   >
   >                     Office: +1 512-279-9479
   >
   >                     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
   >
   >                     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   >
   >                     www.stratfor.com
   >
   >
   >                 --
   >                 Ben West
   >                 Tactical Analyst
   >                 STRATFOR
   >                 Austin, TX
   >                          
   >
   >
   >             --
   >
   >             Sean Noonan
   >
   >             Tactical Analyst
   >
   >             Office: +1 512-279-9479
   >
   >             Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
   >
   >             Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   >
   >             www.stratfor.com
   >
   >
   >         --
   >         Michael Wilson
   >         Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   >         Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
   >         Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com
   >
   >              
   >
   >
   >     --
   >     Ben West
   >     Tactical Analyst
   >     STRATFOR
   >     Austin, TX
   >        
   >
   >
   > --
   >
   > Sean Noonan
   >
   > Tactical Analyst
   >
   > Office: +1 512-279-9479
   >
   > Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
   >
   > Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   >
   > www.stratfor.com
   >
   >
   >
   > --
   > Sean Noonan
   > Tactical Analyst
   > Office: +1 512-279-9479
   > Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
   > Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   > www.stratfor.com
   >
   >
","2010-12-07 14:42:51",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1074383_re-discussion-assange-arrested-.html","nicolas.miller@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1074401,"RE: USE ME Re: Discussion- Assange Arrested
","    

   WikiLeaks has already released its most damaging documents-- its attempt
   to get public attention-- and they haven't amounted to much.  This new
   file likely contains no more damaging information, but instead is full of
   names.  The names of sources who will be at risk and those of diplomats,
   military or intelligence officers who could lose their jobs. 

    

   --And if they release these names, they come off looking like total jerks
   who don't care about the lives and welfare of innocent people and this
   will further serve to alienate global netizens, and turn public opinion
   further against Wikileaks.

    

    

    

   From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
   On Behalf Of Sean Noonan
   Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 8:44 AM
   To: Analyst List
   Subject: USE ME Re: Discussion- Assange Arrested

    

   *Here's my full set of thoughts.  This may be a little too informal for
   our regular articles.  Hopefully this addresses the questions that have
   already come up. 

   London Metropolitan police arrested Julian Assange, the founder and public
   spokesman for WikiLeaks, at 0930 GMT December 7.  He is due to appear in a
   court in Westminster soon to face charges of rape, accused by two woman in
   Sweden.  Charges of sexual assault rarely are passed through Interpol red
   notices, like this case, so this is no doubt about trying to disrupt
   WikiLeaks release of government documents.  While it's possible that
   Assange's arrest could disrupt the long-term viability of WikiLeaks, it
   will not stop the release of cables in the short-term and governments will
   now be concerned about what the organization may release in revenge.

   Leadership is extremely important in non-governmental organizations that
   have not institutionalized.  From terrorist grous  to charities [LINK:
   http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090923_death_top_indonesian_militant],
   these organizations often ebb and flow along with their founders. 
   WikiLeaks is a new organization that has a created a novel method for an
   old practice- leaking confidential government information in an attempt to
   influence politics.  Leaking will not go away with Assange's arrest, but
   WikiLeaks might. 

   WikiLeaks created itself with Assange as the only public face-- he leads
   supports, drives donations, and faces criticism.  This has made many in
   the organization unhappy, and some have left it after disagreeing with
   him.  If Assange were to face charges in Sweden for sexual assault or new
   charges in the UK or US and was found guilty, WikiLeaks would still need
   someone to operate it.  Assange may have someone waiting in the wings, but
   that is not evident. 

   WikiLeaks has also suffered logistically and as a brand.  As national
   governments put pressure on its infrastructure, its websites have been
   shut and most importantly its main source of funding- PayPal- has closed
   WikiLeaks account.  With such pressure and government monitoring, future
   leakers may be too afraid of getting intercepted and go elsewhere. 
   Moreover, this new set of documents have not worked out like Assange
   expected- the public is not angry at the State Department, but many are
   angry at Assange and his organization. 

   Assange's arrest won't stop the continued leaks of this large batch of US
   State Department cables.  It also won't shut down WikiLeaks, which still
   maintains its website and the ability to collect information from
   leakers.  So in the short-term, WikiLeaks will maintain.  The question
   remains if it has created a truly sustainable institutions-- one where
   leaders are replacable, members can adapt to changing circumstance, and
   representatives can aid and inspire new leakers. 

   If Asange is extradited to Sweden and tried of one count of unlawful
   coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape, will he
   be able to maintain WikiLeaks image?  That is hard to say, but growing
   public criticism of him indicates his inability to grow WikiLeaks support
   base.  Western govrenments also fear whatever is contained in his ___
   file, for which he threatens to release an encryption key if something
   happens to him.  WikiLeaks has already released its most damaging
   documents-- its attempt to get public attention-- and they haven't
   amounted to much.  This new file likely contains no more damaging
   information, but instead is full of names.  The names of sources who will
   be at risk and those of diplomats, military or intelligence officers who
   could lose their jobs. 

   WikiLeaks is now facing a conundrum that all new organizations do--the
   ability to maintain and transition leadership through adverse
   circumstances.  Maybe Assange will be released quickly-- STRATFOR cannot
   speak to the veracity of the charges against him-- but if he isn't,
   WikiLeaks will struggle to survive. 

   On 12/7/10 6:36 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:

   I would imagine the most politically \"exciting\" stuff has been published
   (much of which we already knew) but some of the less sexy things may be
   more damaging when released or released uncensored b/c it burns sources
   and people's careers (a few people have already lost their jobs in western
   countries...what about sources in less democratic countries)

   On 12/7/10 5:18 AM, Emre Dogru wrote:

   I am not clear about your argument in the last line. Why this arrest could
   disrupt long-term viability of Wikileaks? I would say the opposite, that
   there might be short-term disruptions (latest release was two days ago)
   but Wikileaks will work in the long-term. They already have over 250K
   documents and if they release them at the same pace, Wikileaks will have
   very long-term viability. Also, Ben's point below about possibly backed up
   documents is worth considering. 

    

   One more question. How do we now that Wikileaks has more sensitive
   information that governments should be concerned about as a revenge?
   Recall George's initial argument that they probably published most
   sensitive information at the very beginning to draw attention. 

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2010 12:42:49 PM
   Subject: Discussion- Assange Arrested

   We had the discussion below on Friday when it was first suggested that
   Assange would be arrested.  Here's a bit more:

   London Metropolitan police arrested Julian Assange, the founder and public
   spokesman for WikiLeaks, at 0930 GMT December 7.  He is due to appear in a
   court in Westminster soon to face charges of rape, accused by two woman in
   Sweden.  Charges of sexual assault rarely are passed through Interpol red
   notices, like this case, so this is no doubt about trying to disrupt
   WikiLeaks release of government documents.  While it's possible that
   Assange's arrest could disrupt the long-term viability of WikiLeaks, it
   will not stop the release of cables in the short-term and governments will
   now be concerned about what the organization may release in revenge.

   see discussion below.  (revenge = that encrypted 'security' file)

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Friday, December 3, 2010 10:23:51 AM
   Subject: Re: [OS] UK/US/AUSTRALIA/CT- WikiLeaks back online, Assange
   close        to arrest

   yes, most likely would not stop these.  but it could disrupt whatever
   might be next. 

   Also all this trouble with internet hosting could serve to slow down this
   set of leaks.  And maybe a combination of wikileaks arrest and server
   shutdowns could stop it. 

   On 12/3/10 9:20 AM, Ben West wrote:

   If Assange is running the show and his staff isn't as confident as he is,
   then arresting him now could very well stop the flow of cables. But all it
   takes is one person to keep it going - or just dump them all at once if it
   gets too dicey, and these files have been very widely distributed so far.
   I can't imagine anyone reclaiming all the documents now.

   On 12/3/2010 8:54 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:

   yeah also remember there was an article by nytimes i think that alot of
   people on his staff were uncomfortable with the way things were playing
   out, so without him there they may loose nerve or come to their better
   senses

   On 12/3/10 8:48 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

   Yes, like Fred's source pointed out--arrest and trial would just be a
   political circus.  It would probably not disrupt wikileaks.  BUT,
   occasonally a leader makes an organization, and maybe no one as capable
   will be willing to fill his shoes.  Or at least, won't be able to get as
   much pubilicity for wikileaks.  As you also said, it could tarnish both
   Assange's and Wikileaks' repution.  That coul dserve to discredit and
   undermine the group.  Maybe people would be less inclined to leak to it,
   or the public would be less inclined to pay attention--or more importantly
   support wikileaks financially.  Though I admit the chance of this causing
   the public to pay less attention is minimal, and in fact would probably
   increase attention on the guy. 

   (though personally, getting a rapist off the street is getting a rapist
   off the street.  Also, his mom owns a puppet theater...)

   On 12/3/10 8:38 AM, Ben West wrote:

   What would the overall significance of his arrest be? It's likely that the
   files are backed up elsewhere and that someone else could give the
   go-ahead for releasing them (that could very well already be the case) and
   if his back-ups are anything like Assange, they would welcome the
   publicity that would come to them by filling his shoes.

   If the British got custody of him, they could conduct searches or evidence
   that would support rape charges and, if they happened to find material
   regarding the leaks, that could lead to new charges. But this has been
   coming for a while, and if Assange was smart, he would have turned over
   any really sensitive stuff by now, which would decrease the likelihood of
   police finding anything juicy.

   Seems to me that all this really does is tarnish his reputation and make
   him look like scum. It provides some public distraction from all the
   leaked documents, but doesn't undermine their impact - just undermines the
   character of the person who facilitated the leaks.

   any other thoughts?

   On 12/3/2010 7:40 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

   I may have sent this out before- Assange walking out of a CNN interview.

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lisa9XTRLb4

   just shows how far his head is up his ass. 

   On 12/3/10 7:32 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

   looks like Assange is in the UK and they might actually roll on him.

   On 12/3/10 7:31 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

   *OG source
   Net closes on Assange: arrest by British police expected in days
   By Mark Hughes and Jerome Taylor
   Friday, 3 December 2010
   http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/net-closes-on-assange-arrest-by-british-police-expected-in-days-2149805.html

   Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, is expected to be arrested in the
   coming days after Swedish prosecutors filed a new warrant with British
   authorities.

   The Independent revealed yesterday that a procedural error with the
   European Arrest Warrant had delayed the arrest of the 39-year-old
   Australian, who is wanted in Sweden over sexual allegations but has been
   in England since October.

   Police in Gothenburg claim they have now submitted a fresh warrant to the
   Serious Organised Crime Agency. Soca is expected to instruct Scotland Yard
   to arrest Mr Assange and have him appear before an extradition hearing -
   although as of last night the Metropolitan Police had yet to receive the
   warrant.

   Police sources have previously said that they received a letter from Mr
   Assange's UK-based lawyer, Mark Stephens, containing information about how
   to contact Mr Assange should they need to.

   Details of the new arrest warrant came as a last-ditch attempt to have the
   allegations against Mr Assange dropped failed. Sweden's highest court
   upheld the arrest order and refused to let him appeal against a lower
   court's ruling.

   Last night, Mr Assange's family spoke of their fears for his safety after
   increasingly shrill statements from American commentators who have called
   for his assassination. His mother, Christine Assange, said \"the forces
   that he's challenging are too big\".

   The arrest warrant filed with Soca states that he was wanted on suspicion
   of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. But Soca requested a
   new warrant. A spokeswoman for the Swedish National Police Board told the
   BBC that the original one had been refused because it listed only the
   maximum penalty for the most serious crime alleged, rather than for all of
   the crimes.

   When the arrest is made, Mr Assange will be taken before an extradition
   hearing at Westminster magistrates' court. If he refuses to be extradited,
   a judge will preside over an extradition hearing and will rule whether he
   should be sent to Sweden or discharged.

   Last night, Mr Stephens said he would challenge any arrest in British
   courts. \"The process in this case has been so utterly irregular that the
   chances of a valid arrest warrant being submitted to me are very small,\"
   he said. Mr Stephens has accused Swedish prosecutors of launching a
   witch-hunt against his client, who strongly denies the rape allegations
   and says he is being smeared because of the exposes published by his
   website.

   He has maintained that Swedish prosecutors have yet to provide any
   evidence against Mr Assange and have ignored his requests to meet with
   them. He also expressed concerns at the way the UK and Swedish authorities
   were handling the case.

   \"I feel like I am sitting in the middle of a surreal Swedish fairytale,\"
   he said. \"The trolls keep threatening to come on and keep making noises
   off stage. But at the moment, no appearance from them.\"

   In an interview with an Australian newspaper, Mr Assange's mother defended
   her son and lambasted hawks in the US who have called for his death.

   Ms Assange, who runs a puppet theatre in Noosa, a Queensland beach resort,
   defended her son's decision to publish thousands of classified US
   documents on the website. \"He sees what he's doing as doing a good thing
   in the world - fighting baddies, if you like,\" she told Queensland's
   Courier-Mail.

   Ms Assange - who does not even own a computer - described her son as a
   hero of the internet. But she added that she feared he had \"gotten too
   smart for himself\", saying: \"I'm concerned it's gotten too big and the
   forces that he's challenging are too big.\" She did not want him \"hunted
   down and jailed\".

   On 12/3/10 7:24 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

   WikiLeaks back online, Assange close to arrest

   Updated 2 hours 45 minutes ago
   http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/03/3084384.htm

   The WikiLeaks website is back online with a new Swiss address after its
   previous domain name was killed.

   The whistleblower website's original domain host, EveryDNS.net, says it
   terminated its services because Wikileaks had been coming under \"massive\"
   cyber attacks.

   The new address - wikileaks.ch - was put online six hours after the
   original site wikileaks.org was killed.

   An internet trace of the new domain name suggests that the site itself is
   still hosted in Sweden and in France.

   Web users accessing the wikileaks.ch address are directed to a page under
   the URL http://213.251.145.96/ which gives them access to the former site,
   including a massive trove of leaked US diplomatic traffic.

   The WikiLeaks website released more than 250,000 secret US diplomatic
   cables this week, which has left governments around the world scrambling
   to deal with the fallout.

   Meanwhile, British media reports Scotland Yard could arrest the site's
   founder Julian Assange within days.

   Prosecutors in Sweden want to question Mr Assange over alleged sex crimes
   involving two women during a visit to Stockholm in August.

   Mr Assange, who was born in Australia, has not been charged and he denies
   the allegations.

   He reportedly avoided arrest this week because Swedish authorities had
   filled out an Interpol red notice incorrectly.

   Britain's Independent newspaper reports that police know Mr Assange's
   whereabouts in England and are expected to arrest him in the coming days.

   Mr Assange's Stockholm-based lawyer Bjoern Hurtig says he will fight his
   client's extradition to Sweden in the event of his arrest.

   \"Together with my British colleague Mark Stephens and international
   experts, we will fight the extradition warrants,\" he said.

   A WikiLeaks spokesman says Mr Assange has to remain out of the public eye
   because he is facing assassination threats following the whistleblowing
   website's publication of the secret cables.

   Several US senators have also called for him to be charged with espionage.

   Senator Dianne Feinstein says the leak is a serious breach of national
   security and action must be taken.

   \"We have reviewed the espionage statutes and we believe it qualifies,\" she
   said.

   \"That this, allowed to be carried out, incapacitates this nation to carry
   out business.\"

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com

    

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com

    

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com

    

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com

    

 --

 Ben West

 Tactical Analyst

 STRATFOR

 Austin, TX

    

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com

    

 --

 Michael Wilson

 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR

 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112

 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com

  

    

 --

 Ben West

 Tactical Analyst

 STRATFOR

 Austin, TX

    

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com

   --
   Sean Noonan
   Tactical Analyst
   Office: +1 512-279-9479
   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   www.stratfor.com

   --
   --
   Emre Dogru
   STRATFOR  
   Cell: +90.532.465.7514
   Fixed: +1.512.279.9468  
   emre.dogru@stratfor.com  
   www.stratfor.com

 --

 Michael Wilson

 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR

 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112

 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com

  

    

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-07 14:54:03",1,"2012-02-29 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1074401_re-use-me-re-discussion-assange-arrested-.html","scott.stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1075446,"Re: [Eurasia] Monti, a government without politicians
","   as a rule academics do very badly in the real world -- ive more confidence
   in the bankers

   regardless, this should be fun to watch

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Adriano Bosoni\" <adriano.bosoni@stratfor.com>
   To: \"EurAsia AOR\" <eurasia@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 3:46:31 PM
   Subject: [Eurasia] Monti, a government without politicians

   This is an interesting profile of the new Monti cabinet... only the second
   time in Italian history when a technical government is 100%
   politician-free (the previous one being the Dini government of 95-96). The
   press is already calling Monti \"The Professor\" (Prodi has the same
   nickname)... I'm afraid the press is creating excessive hype around the
   new government...

   Monti, a government without politicians
   November 16, 2011

   http://www3.lastampa.it/politica/sezioni/articolo/lstp/430140/

   A government of professors, rectors, officials, bankers. A government of
   few women (only three, although in leading roles), gray hair (63 years
   average age). And with no politicians.

   The professor sends two messages: one to markets on the \"seriousness\" and
   \"quality\" of his team, the other to the parties. Monti ensures that the
   solidity of its executive is not challenged by the absence of politicians,
   but rather is enhanced precisely because there would be \"embarrassment\" by
   their presence.

   After reading the composition of the Executive (which sees himself leading
   Economic Affairs), the Professor stresses that the guiding star of his
   government will be a quest to ensure growth. \"The reliance on one person
   of the Ministry of Economic Development and Infrastructure - says of the
   appointment of Corrado Passera - corresponds to a logic that I want to
   emphasize: the initiatives for economic growth and development will be at
   the center of my government.\"

   Former Commissioner knows that the greatest obstacles will be in the
   Parliament. Thus he is showing his best diplomatic skills. First Monti
   thanks the political and social forces \"for the partnership had during the
   consultations.\" Then, his predecessor, Silvio Berlusconi to whom he sends
   \"cordial greetings\" with \"respect and attention to the work he has done.\"

   The Monti government, as well as having cut the number of Ministers (now
   16, Berlusconi had 23) and being born in record time (67 hours after
   receiving President Napolitano's request), stands to have a 100% technical
   profile. Palazzo Chigi will be full of specialists, recruited in
   university classrooms and offices of the ministries, not because of their
   political cloak but only for their expertise.

   A military man goes to defense, a former prefect of the Interior, an
   ambassador for Foreign Affairs, not to mention Monti taking the Economy
   Ministry: this is the impression that the new PM wanted to give his team,
   in which, after the push and pull of Letta and Amato, in the end they have
   not even entered as representatives of their party.

   But the Executive will not be weakened: \"The armor of this government
   depends on our ability to act and to explain the significance of their
   actions: this is the armor that I will try with my ministers\".

 --
 Adriano Bosoni - ADP
","2011-11-17 14:24:57",1,"2012-03-02 13:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1075446_re-eurasia-monti-a-government-without-politicians-.html","peter.zeihan@stratfor.com","mailto:eurasia@stratfor.com","eurasia@stratfor.com",""
1078390,"MORE Re: INSIGHT - CN65 Re: [Fwd: [OS] AUSTRALIA/MINING -Australia
	treasurer	rules out retreat over mining tax]
","   I asked the source if it really looks like Rudd and his party would lose
   to the LNP what would be the change that they backtrack on the tax, to
   which he responds:  Little.  They've dug themselves such an enormous hole
   (if you forgive the irony about the pun) that if they backtrack they will
   be even worse off.  It was backtracking on emissions trading which caused
   their problems originally.

   Jennifer Richmond wrote:

     Just an opinion, of course, from the opposition.

     SOURCE: CN65
     ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
     natural resources
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator.  Source is 
     well-connected politically, militarily and economically.  He has become
     a
     private businessman helping foreign companies with M&As
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
     DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

     You need to understand that the Treasurer is (a) not terribly smart, and
     (b) the most appalling grub you have ever met.  He has made his
     political career by smear and innuendo against anyone and anything in
     his way.  Not a terribly satisfactory individual.
     I am, as a matter of interest, campaign manager for the LNP in his seat.
      It iwll be a tough ask, though, because of the redistribution.

       Thought you would be interested.

       -------- Original Message --------

        Subject: [OS] AUSTRALIA/MINING -Australia treasurer rules out retreat 
                 over mining tax                                              
           Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 10:28:41 -0500                              
           From: Michael Wilson <michael.wilson@stratfor.com>                 
       Reply-To: The OS List <os@stratfor.com>                                
             To: os >> The OS List <os@stratfor.com>                          

       Australia treasurer rules out retreat over mining tax
        27 May 2010 - 09H54 
       http://www.france24.com/en/20100527-australia-treasurer-rules-out-retreat-over-mining-tax

       AFP - The architect of Australia's controversial new resources tax
       rejected any weakening of the proposal Thursday, as pension funds
       warned miners that their vocal opposition was only hurting share
       prices.

       Treasury secretary Ken Henry also denied the planned 40 percent \"super
       tax\" on mining profits would deter investment or raise Australia's
       sovereign risk, following repeated warnings by industry giants such as
       Rio Tinto.

       There is \"a lot of colour in the debate at the moment,\" Henry, who
       unveiled the tax earlier this month, told the Senate.

       \"An enormous amount has been said by mining executives and
       commentators recently about the impact of the resource super profits
       tax on mining investment.

       \"But I can say to you that today, we remain very confident of our
       forecasts for mining investment included in the budget.\"

       The government proposes updating the current royalties system with a
       40 percent tax on profits over six percent, to claim a greater share
       of an Asian-driven mining boom tipped to last decades.

       Mining companies believe the tax is too heavy and will drive away
       investment and jobs, derailing Australia's economic recovery, which
       has been exceptional by developed-world standards. Several firms have
       put projects on hold.

       The tax has prompted a concerted industry campaign, in turn dismissed
       as scare tactics by the government, including TV and newspaper adverts
       and a series of public warnings.

       On Thursday, a body representing Australia's mandatory pensions
       industry urged the miners to tone down their \"overtly political\"
       rhetoric, partly blaming the resources industry for a sudden slump in
       share prices and fund values.

       \"(This) very well resourced and very consistent public relations and
       media campaign is possibly causing greater uncertainty and affecting
       share prices of major resources companies, in the context of some
       clearly very concerning news which continues to arrive out of Europe,\"
       said Industry Super Network chief David Whitely.

       \"I think the expectation that industry super (superannuation) funds
       would have on the major miners and the resources sector, as
       shareholders in these companies, is that they would cease this quite
       clear and overtly political campaign,\" Whitely told ABC Radio.

       Meanwhile Henry tempered expectations that the tax's threshold might
       be raised from six to 12 percent, after Treasurer Wayne Swan said he
       was \"not ruling any of these things in or out\" during consultations
       with miners.

       \"I am not aware of any decisions having been taken to make fundamental
       changes to the tax plan,\" Henry said.

       He also rejected suggestions that the mining industry, which accounts
       for some 40 percent of Australia's exports by value, had saved the
       country from recession during last year's global downturn.

       \"These statements are not supported by the facts,\" said Henry, noting
       that the sector shed 15 percent of its jobs in 2009.

       \"Had every industry in Australia behaved in the same way, our
       unemployment rate would have increased from 4.6 percent to 19 percent
       in six months,\" he added.

       A group of prominent Australian economists and academics issued a
       public letter this week backing Henry's tax and dismissing the
       industry campaign against it as \"misinformation\".

       But Citi analysts Thursday warned that uncertainty around the tax
       could delay some projects by up to 12 months and permanently scuttle
       others, hitting government plans to return the budget to surplus
       within three years.

       -- Dow Jones Newswires contributed to this report --
       Click here to find out more!

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Watchofficer
 STRATFOR
 michael.wilson@stratfor.com
 (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director, Stratfor
 US Mobile: (512) 422-9335
 China Mobile: (86) 15801890731
 Email: richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2010-05-28 04:33:23",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1078390_more-re-insight-cn65-re-fwd-os-australia-mining-australia.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1078864,"Re: WikiLeaks & Julian Assange
","   Mostly its a revelation to the ignorant. If you pay little attention to
   foreign affairs but suddenly focused on this because of media attention,
   you might think some of this is significant. If your well versed, its the
   unimportant scraps of conversations. This is the same as with the iraqi
   and afghan reports. Nothing was of significance there either.

   Woodward and bernstein were fed their story by lent and the fbi. They
   weren't investigators. They were stenographers. This isn't investigation
   either. Its more like dumpster diving and only getting the top layer of
   the garbage and thinking it was gold.

   J

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Rodger Baker\" <rbaker@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:34:54 -0600 (CST)
   To: Colin Chapman<chapman@stratfor.com>; <rbaker@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: rbaker@stratfor.com, Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Analysts<analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: WikiLeaks & Julian Assange
   My point is that this isn't a taRgeted look at anything. It is a
   completely random selection of material, not even released in a way to
   tell a narrative. There is a signicant difference between this and
   specific leaks of targeted information.

   I'm not arguing tjhat rich people aren't helping spread this. And maybe
   some journalists will eventually use some if this to point them into the
   direection of some important investigation.

   But I have a hard time seeing these releases as some sort of journalistic
   tour du force. And reception is less changing politics than voyeuristic
   pleasure.

   --
   Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Colin Chapman <chapman@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 19:04:11 -0600 (CST)
   To: <rbaker@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: WikiLeaks & Julian Assange
   I did make the point about context and also said it is precisely because
   investigative journalism has died in much of the press that WL can
   flourish. (Along with many other internet operations).  And actually some
   of the stuff I have seen on WL had already been leaked to the press.
    WikiLeaks is raw, but I am not sure publication of a confidential
   document in this form and passed over on a memory stick is any different
   from a printed document handed over by a public official or whistleblower
   to a journalist, or indeed to a private intelligence company. Breaches of
   security are by the providers, not the messengers. As to spin, I disagree.
   Spinning interferes with truth. Rio Tinto was spinning that it sought
   leniency from the Chinese for Stern Hu. All the time it was providing
   secret information on his finances to the Chinese government, thereby
   condemning him to a more serious sentence. The US state department
   pretended Rudd was a great friend of the US (as indeed he was) while at
   the same time working with a leading conspirator to get rid of him. That
   these things happen it is not surprising, but when we find out about them
   they should be published not in 50 years time when a historian decides to
   write a book, but now
   On 11/12/2010, at 10:46 AM, Rodger Baker wrote:

     Much of the discussion today wasn't about assange, but about these
     wiki-supporting internet vigilantes, who sit around and mess with vidsa
     and mastercard web services. These sorts are geeks in their nom's
     basement.

     But even if funded, they do nothing to offer understanding, context,
     explanation of the material. It is a data dump. Well funded, perhaps,
     but with little value added.

     As for sick of spindoctors, I don't know. They are just spinning things
     in anothjer direction. Politically motivated, yes. Cutting through spin?
     No way. Just spinning another direction.

     As for woodward, the wiki folks aren't investigative journalists, just
     thieves. They didn't do any work, just downloaded a memory stick if
     stolen documents. 

     -- 
     Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Marko Papic <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
     Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 16:50:43 -0600 (CST)
     To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>; chapman<chapman@stratfor.com>
     ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Re: WikiLeaks & Julian Assange
     Nor, in my opinion, are they, as Marko suggests, young men destined for
     greatness.

     I did not say that. I said that they are young men DISILLUSIONED by
     greatness and ego. 

     BIG difference.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Colin Chapman\" <chapman@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 4:46:20 PM
     Subject: WikiLeaks & Julian Assange

     It is wrong to characterise the WikiLeaks leaders as geeks operating
     from Mum's basement.
     Nor, in my opinion, are they, as Marko suggests, young men destined for
     greatness.
     That may be the way it reads inside America, but outside the US they are
     the Woodsteins of the internet age. They are well funded, and their
     patrons are those, who - like the voters in recent elections in Britain,
     US and Australia - who are sick of spin doctors and politicians telling
     lies. (In that sense they are like Stratfor!). The weakness is that WL
     stuff is raw and unprocessed, often not in context. 
     One of the participants in the WikiLeaks publishing operation has today
      described a visit by their correspondent to the WikiLeaks HQ in rural
     England. It's not Mum's basement, but a Georgian mansion, obviously
     donated by a generous benefactor. Many of these benefactors are
     broadcasters and rich lawyers, such as Geoffrey Robinson, who are strong
     advocates of press freedom. By its description it sounds to me as if it
     this place is in Norfolk, where my son lives, about 120 miles north east
     of London. The correspondent makes it clear that the people around
     Assange were not geeks.
     It is worth reading this article, found at 

     http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/how-i-met-julian-assange-and-secured-the-american-embassy-cables-20101210-18sxj.html

     This isn't to say that much of their stuff is either important, or
     relevant in the world of geopolitics. But some of the recent material
     is. The duplicity of Rio Tinto in feeding the Chinese secretly  data
     about its staff, including Stern HU, while simultaneously pleading for
     his release, and the many other commercial revelations are examples. 
     Finally, surely the approach here is to treat each 'leak' on its merits
     as an event, either worthy of attention or not, rather than the product
     of anarchists. If newspapers were doing their job properly,if they were
     following the edict of the great London Times editor Thomas Delane that
     'the duty of the press is disclosure' , there would be little space for
     Wikileaks. Much of the media, particularly in metropolitan America, has
     resigned from investigative journalism, preferring instead to feed off
     the corporate and government spin doctors for serious news, and publish
     tedious 'lifestyle' sections. 

     Colin

     -- 
     Marko Papic

     STRATFOR Analyst 
     C: + 1-512-905-3091
     marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-11 02:44:04",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1078864_re-wikileaks-and-julian-assange-.html","friedman@att.blackberry.net","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","rbaker@stratfor.com,analysts@stratfor.com,chapman@stratfor.com",""
1079543,"STRATFOR Reader Response - Taking Stock of WikiLeaks
","   Jack,

   I don't think there's much of a doubt that there is some legitimacy to
   suggestions that WikiLeaks could have been better with redaction. With the
   diplomatic cables especially, there has absolutely been a fallout with
   cooperative diplomatic persons being outed.

   But in the case of Afghanistan, we take a different view. The Taliban is a
   adept and aware adversary. And it is a grassroots phenomenon with
   considerable local support. These guys watch what U.S. troops do and where
   they go extraordinarily closely. So the idea that they need to read U.S.
   reports to figure out who is working with the Americans simply does not
   ring true to us.

   Are the leaks ideal or helpful? Of course not. But the claims of their
   danger seem largely overblown to us.

   We appreciate your question and close readership.

   Cheers,

   Nate
   --
   Nathan Hughes
   Director
   Military Analysis
   STRATFOR
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-15 22:17:42",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1079543_stratfor-reader-response-taking-stock-of-wikileaks-.html","hughes@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","jackk@chicagobancorp.com",""
1084229,"Espionage Act Presents Challenges for WikiLeaks Indictment
","   Comments from the experts.  As I said before, I still don't think the
   Supreme Court has set a clear line on this issue.  Note Holder's statement
   too--suggests Fred's info is true that they may try to prosecute Assange
   under other laws. 
   Espionage Act Presents Challenges for WikiLeaks Indictment
   Sweeping Anti-Spying Law 'Makes Felons of Us All,' Legal Expert Says
   http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-indictment-us-charge-julian-assange-espionage-act/story?id=12369173
   29 comments
   By DEVIN DWYER
   Dec. 13, 2010

   As the U.S. Justice Department crafts a legal case against WikiLeaks'
   Julian Assange for the publication of thousands of secret government
   cables, legal experts are warning that any indictment under the Espionage
   Act may also implicate the news media -- and Americans who've read the
   cables or shared them with their friends.

   The World War I-era law is broadly written and criminalizes anyone who
   possesses or transmits any \"information relating to the national defense\"
   which an individual has \"reason to believe could be used to the injury of
   the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.\"

   If WikiLeaks, which allegedly did not steal the documents, is guilty of
   espionage for printing them, so too might be the New York Times, U.K.'s
   The Guardian, and Germany's Der Spiegel, which have replicated and
   disseminated the materials worldwide, some experts say.

   Individual users of Twitter and Facebook and other social media who spread
   links to the documents far and wide, or even discussed the contents in
   public, could also technically be liable.

   \"One of the flaws in the Espionage Act is that it draws no distinction
   between the leaker or the spy and the recipient of the information, no
   matter how far downstream the recipient is,\" said American University law
   professor Stephen Vladeck, an expert in national security law.

   \"There's no difference in the statute between Assange and someone at home
   who opens up something that Assange has posted on his website knowing that
   it's classified,\" he said.

   The sweeping and vague nature of the law may explain why the federal
   government recently warned all employees not to read WikiLeaks' cables or
   any news reports pertaining to them because the information is still
   classified.

   Several universities around the country have also warned students who
   might seek careers with the federal government not to post links to
   WikiLeaks content or discuss the cables publicly through social media.

   \" [The Espionage Act] criminalizes all casual discussions of such
   disclosures by persons not authorized to receive them to other persons not
   authorized to receive them... in other words, all tweets sending around
   those countless news stories, all blogging on them, and all dinner party
   conversations about their contents,\" wrote Benjamin Wittes, a legal
   analyst with the Brookings Institution, on the blog LawFare.

   \"Taken at its word, the Espionage Act makes felons of us all,\" he said.

  Feds Weigh Approaches to Charging Assange

   Vladeck said the complexity of the situation may explain why the U.S.
   government and Attorney General Eric Holder have not yet charged Assange
   with a crime.

   Still, Jennifer Robinson, one of Assange's attorneys, told ABC News last
   week that she's hearing an indictment under the Espionage Act could be
   imminent.

   \"Our position of course is that we don't believe it applies to Mr. Assange
   and that in any event he's entitled to First Amendment protection as
   publisher of Wikileaks and any prosecution under the Espionage Act would
   in my view be unconstitutional and puts at risk all media organizations in
   the U.S.,\" Robinson said.

   Only once in the history of the Espionage Act has the U.S. government
   brought a case against someone other than the thief of secret information.
   That prosecution failed, Vladeck said.

   But Holder cautioned reporters last week that the Espionage Act isn't the
   only law under which the Justice Department might charge Assange.

   \"I don't want to get into specifics here, but people would have a
   misimpression if the only statute you think that we are looking at is the
   Espionage Act,\" he said. \"That is certainly something that might play a
   role, but there are other statutes, other tools that we have at our
   disposal.\"

   Experts say Assange could also be charged with trafficking in stolen
   government property or conspiracy, if investigators can demonstrate a link
   between Assange and the alleged source of the leak, Army Private Bradley
   Manning.

   Manning, who is believed to have stolen the documents in his role as a
   military intelligence analyst, is being held in a U.S. military prison in
   Quantico, Va. He likely faces charges for espionage.

   As for liability of the news media, a recent report from the Congressional
   Research Service suggests there may be sufficient legal precedent to keep
   them off the hook.

   \"Leaks of classified information to the press have only rarely been
   punished as crimes, and we are aware of no case in which a publisher of
   information obtained through unauthorized disclosure by a government
   employee has been prosecuted for publishing it,\" the report reads.

   \"There may be First Amendment implications that would make such a
   prosecution difficult, not to mention political ramifications based on
   concerns about government censorship.\"

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-15 17:40:26",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1084229_espionage-act-presents-challenges-for-wikileaks-indictment-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1092275,"[alpha] OBL
","We told the Pakis after we killed him.  But, will praise GOP publicly.  All spin and bullshit.


Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
","2011-05-02 05:33:15",1,"2012-02-29 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1092275_-alpha-obl-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1094301,"[alpha] Killed by Ground Branch
","CIA 
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
","2011-05-02 05:12:09",1,"2012-02-29 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1094301_-alpha-killed-by-ground-branch-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1094322,"[alpha] OBL
","Reportedly, we took the body with us.  Thank goodness.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
","2011-05-02 05:26:15",1,"2012-02-29 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1094322_-alpha-obl-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1096148,"Occupy's 'nerve center' staffed by Soros activists
","                        To View As Web Page Click Here.                       

   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
   |Newsletter - TeaParty.org                                               |
   |                                                                        |
   |                            Secret Funding!                             |
   |                                                                        |
   |                        Occupy's 'Nerve Center'                         |
   | The so-called leaderless Occupy movement has just been caught          |
   | red-handed operating what appears to be a nerve center staffed by      |
   | professional agitators deeply tied to groups funded by billionaire     |
   | activist George Soros.                                                 |
   |                                                                        |
   | The groups, most prominent among them being the Tides Center, have     |
   | been involved with Occupy since the anti-Wall Street movement's        |
   | inception.                                                             |
   |                                                                        |
   | The radical connections have been largely missed by the general        |
   | public. CNN, the only news media outlet to receive exclusive access to |
   | Occupy's alleged headquarters, did not fully identify the activists    |
   | found running it.                                                      |
   |                    Fax a Flag - Wake Up Washington                     |
   | Last week, CNN ran a piece titled \"Exclusive: Inside the offices of    |
   | Occupy Wall Street.\"                                                   |
   |                                                                        |
   | The article and accompanying video purport to depict \"a few dozen      |
   | Occupy Wall Street organizers\" who \"show up to work every day at an    |
   | office building in the heart of Manhattan's Financial District.\"       |
   |                                                                        |
   | CNN surmised \"the office space appears to be the movement's nerve      |
   | center,\" a notion denied by Occupy leaders interviewed by the news     |
   | network.                                                               |
   |                                                                        |
   | Continued the piece: \"But the volunteers who plan future actions,      |
   | network with other Occupy protests and deal with logistical issues     |
   | insisted the location is not Occupy Wall Street's headquarters.\"       |
   |                                                                        |
   | The news network maintained it visited Occupy's nerve center. CNN      |
   | reported the Occupy office boasts a finance committee that manages     |
   | expenses and donations; a communications group that disseminates       |
   | information agreed upon by consensus and a housing group to make       |
   | sleeping arrangements for protesters.                                  |
   |                                                                        |
   | CNN quoted activist Han Shan, identifying him only as \"a member of     |
   | Occupy Wall Street's press relations and direct-action working         |
   | groups.\"                                                               |
   |                                                                        |
   | \"This is just an office space that a handful of people have tried to   |
   | make a resource for the Occupy Wall Street movement,\" Shan stated.     |
   |                                                                        |
   | \"Everybody is looking around trying to figure out where the heck the   |
   | headquarters is, and the truth of the matter is this movement is       |
   | bigger than any piece of geography, than any piece of real estate,     |
   | than any square block.\"                                                |
   |                                                                        |
   | Shan's radical resume goes far beyond Occupy. He is the former program |
   | director for the Tides Center-funded Ruckus Society and an activist    |
   | with the Tides-funded Adbusters.                                       |
   | For Price of Six-pack and a Pizza You Can Support the Tea Party for a  |
   |                                 Month!                                 |
   | Shan was listed as the contact person for protests outside the 2000    |
   | Democratic National Convention. Those protests were sponsored by both  |
   | Adbusters and Ruckus.                                                  |
   |                                                                        |
   | Shan previously pulled off a stunt at the Mall of America in           |
   | Minneapolis, where he reportedly climbed to the top of the building    |
   | and unfurled a 600-square-foot cartoon that depicted the earth falling |
   | through a broken shopping bag. The action was aimed at getting mall    |
   | visitors to ditch their purchases, go home and observe Thanksgiving    |
   | Friday as \"Buy Nothing Day.\"                                           |
   |                                                                        |
   | Since 1992, \"Buy Nothing Day\" has been sponsored annually by the       |
   | Vancouver-based Media Foundation, which publishes Adbusters.           |
   |                                                                        |
   | Adbusters magazine is reported to have come up with the Occupy Wall    |
   | Street idea after Arab Spring protests toppled governments in Egypt,   |
   | Libya and Tunisia. The Adbusters website serves as a central hub for   |
   | Occupy's planning.                                                     |
   |                                                                        |
   | Working with the Ruckus Society, Shan was a leader of the 1999 World   |
   | Trade Organization protests in Seattle that turned violent. Ruckus     |
   | helped to spark those riots.                                           |
   |                                                                        |
   | Ruckus is directly tied to Occupy. WND previously reported how         |
   | official direct-action training resources for recent Occupy events     |
   | include several manuals from the Ruckus Society, which trains radical  |
   | activists in \"direct action\" techniques.                               |
   |                                                                        |
   | Ruckus was also listed as a \"friend and partner\" of the Occupy Days of |
   | Action held last month.                                                |
   |                                                                        |
   | Ruckus is funded by the Tides Center, which has been involved in       |
   | Occupy since the movement's onset.                                     |
   |                                                                        |
   | Another grantee of Tides is the Adbusters magazine. MoveOn org, which  |
   | has joined Occupy, is funded by Tides.                                 |
   |                                                                        |
   | Tides functions as a money tunnel where major leftist donors provide   |
   | large sums that are channeled to hundreds of radical groups. One       |
   | prominent Tides donor is Soros.                                        |
   |                                                                        |
   | Besides accepting major donations from Tides, Ruckus is also funded    |
   | directly by Soros' own Open Society Institute.                         |
   |                                                                        |
   | Meanwhile, another Occupy staffer loosely identified by CNN is Haywood |
   | Carey, who is labeled simply as an Occupy \"activist.\" KEEP READING -   |
   | TEA PARTY                                                              |
   |                  HELP THE TEA PARTY RESTORE AMERICA!                   |
   |                                                                        |
   |                                 Donate                                 |
   |                                                                        |
   |                           ONE TIME DONATION                            |
   |       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~       |
   |                                                                        |
   |                Opinions From Tea Party's Secret Blogger                |
   |                                                                        |
   |  Warning - This blog posting has not been corrected or spell checked.  |
   |                      It is raw Freedom of Speech.                      |
   |                                                                        |
   |                        We Still Have The Power                         |
   | The States Have the Constitutional Power to Pass Legislation           |
   | Prescribing Presidential Ballot Access Requirements Including          |
   | Determining Whether a Candidate Meets the Eligibility Requirements of  |
   | Article II, Section 1, Clause 5                                        |
   |                                                                        |
   | I am so excited about this blog. It's wonderful it's great it brings   |
   | hope. Why you ask?                                                     |
   |                                                                        |
   | First I have to tell you this put a huge ole smile on my face and joy  |
   | in my heart and I bet your asking why?                                 |
   |                                                                        |
   | 1. What is says is Obama doesn't stand a chance against the law suits  |
   | that can be brought against him in each State. It describes what and   |
   | how we came from using the term Natural Born Citizen to Citizen and    |
   | what the Constitution and Courts have upheld in regards to those       |
   | terms.                                                                 |
   |                                                                        |
   | 2. It means that the rules that apply to the President and Vice        |
   | President also apply to the House of Representatives and Senate.       |
   |                           Join Command Center                          |
   | 3. It means that the States all have the right to pass laws requiring  |
   | long form birth certificate proof of citizenship for those offices.    |
   |                                                                        |
   | 4. It also clarifies the intentions of the Constitution to what a      |
   | Citizen is and that illegal aliens that come here and have their       |
   | babies, those babies are not automatically Citizens and are not        |
   | automatically eligible to our rights and privileges as the Feds would  |
   | have us believe.                                                       |
   |                                                                        |
   | 5. It means that if your City, and Counties or what name you use for   |
   | your local governing bodies, have stipulations in their requirements   |
   | for people running for you Mayor, City Council, Sheriff, School Board  |
   | members, County boards etc. any office that is held by an elected or   |
   | appointed position, that they are to be citizens of the United States  |
   | are all subject to question. :)                                        |
   |                                                                        |
   | At least that's what I get out of it.....I'm not a constitutional wiz  |
   | or a lawyer, but to me that's what if means.                           |
   |                                                                        |
   | Then guys and gals we have to go to work big time. Time is running     |
   | out. Join the Tea Party to learn how to become an activist. We should  |
   | be ready to fight. If we come together and work as one group.          |
   |                                                                        |
   | It doesn't matter if we all don't agree on every single issue.         |
   |                                                                        |
   | The most important thing we have to agree on is to SAVE THIS COUNTRY   |
   | AND OUR RIGHTS A CITIZENS SO OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN CAN ENJOY  |
   | THEM AND THE FREEDOMS AS WE HAVE. \"GOD BLESS AMERICA\"                  |
   |                                                                        |
   | [END OF BLOG POSTING]    [COMMAND CENTER]                              |
   |  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   |
   |                                                                        |
   |                                 Donate                                 |
   |                                                                        |
   |  Tea Party Fax Blast Project    Tea Party Command Center    Tea Party  |
   |                                  Vets                                  |
   |  It is your turn to save America. The Tea Party needs your help.  Give |
   |      today, because tomorrow may be the day after we lost America.     |
   |                                                                        |
   |  Support the continued work of the Tea Party on behalf of our beloved  |
   |                                 nation.                                |
   | We Support Responsible Email Compliance: This email cannot be          |
   | considered spam as long as we include: Contact information & remove    |
   | instructions. This message is being sent to you in compliance with the |
   | current Federal legislation for commercial e-mail (H.R.4176 - SECTION  |
   | 101Paragraph (e)(1)(A)) AND Bill s.1618 TITLE III passed by the 105th  |
   | U.S. Congress.                                                         |
   |                                                                        |
   | Not responsible for typographical errors. Further transmissions to you |
   | may be stopped at no cost to you by replying back with the word        |
   | \"REMOVE\" in the subject line of the E-mail which was sent. Contact     |
   | Information: SE Administrator 24338 El Toro Rd. E-108 Laguna Woods, CA |
   | 92637                                                                  |
   +------------------------------------------------------------------------+

           ---------------------------------------------------------          
                                                                              
             If you wish not to receive future e-mails, click here.           
                                                                              
           ---------------------------------------------------------          
","2011-12-15 17:18:44",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1096148_occupy-s-nerve-center-staffed-by-soros-activists-.html","teaparty@e.teaparty.org","","internships@stratfor.com",""
1097638,"Re: OBL's corpse
","   Body is Dover bound, should be here by now. 

   On 5/2/2011 6:35 AM, George Friedman wrote:

     Eichmann was seen alive for many months on trial before being sentenced
     to death and executed. No one wanted a monument to him so they cremated
     him. But i dont know anyone who claimed he wasnt eicjhman. No comparison
     with suddenly burying him at sea without any chance to view him which i
     doubt happened.

     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
     Sender: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
     Date: Mon, 2 May 2011 06:26:07 -0500 (CDT)
     To: <analysts@stratfor.com>
     ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Subject: OBL's corpse
     If body dumped at sea, which I doubt, the touch is very Adolph Eichman
     like.  The Tribe did the same thing with the Nazi's ashes. 

     We would want to photograph, DNA, fingerprint, etc. 

     His body is a crime scene and I don't see the FBI nor DOJ letting that
     happen. 
","2011-05-02 13:36:41",1,"2012-02-29 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1097638_re-obl-s-corpse-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com,friedman@att.blackberry.net",""
1097811,"[alpha] Blowback
","FBI sees retaliation attacks in CONUS 

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
","2011-05-02 05:22:49",1,"2012-02-29 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1097811_-alpha-blowback-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1100512,"INSIGHT - World Crude Steel Production - (via) CN65
","   **Report sent by CN65

   SOURCE: CN65 (via CN65)
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator working in PNG
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
   DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

   World Crude Steel Production

   The Latest data from The World Steel Association shows a 1% decline in
   global
   crude steel production in December 2010 on the previous month total was
   116.2 Mt,
   which was however 8.4 Mt higher than in the same month in 2009.

   I think this fairly suggests that the Global recovery since The GFC is
   well
   on track and it is not 'just' China.

   Total global crude steel production in 2010 was 1,395.5 Mt, 15% higher
   than
   in the previous year which is a big number except for the fact that the
   GFC forced a very significant reduction pretty much everywhere
   'except for China'

   Month-on-month increases were seen in the majority of steel producing
   regions including the US (+0.3 Mt to 6.7 Mt), China (+1.4 Mt to 51.5
   Mt) and Japan (+0.2 Mt to 9.2 Mt). However in the EU, production fell
   from the previous month (-1.7 to 13.0 Mt).

   German Imports of Iron Ore Drop to 3.46 Mt in November German imports of
   iron ore dropped 17% month-on-month in November to 3.46 Mt BUT this took
   the January to November 2010 total in German to 39.48 Mt, 10.66 Mt higher
   that in the same period of 2009 when Germany and others were still
   recovering from The GFC.

   Obviously as WW steel production continues to increase then demand
   for Ore and Coking coal remains strong and continues to expand 'ahead'
   of Physical supply and therefore keeps these commodity prices trending
   higher at a time when total DWCC for its carriage continues to
   grow ahead of Physical export volumes which forces dry bulk freight
   rates to trend lower, even with extraordinary factors of Congestion
   (and slow steaming) and additional tonne miles through longer haul
   which fo however reduce DWCC availability.

   Having said this, I still say 'watch out' for a significant recovery in
   druy bulk rates 'led by capers' then flowing down into Panamax resp
   Supramax sizes once the current unsustainably low levels have been
   rationailsed by this market and DWCC supply having been redistributed
   (Including layups - especially Capers) and the equation reset in Owners
   favour, albeit that any bounce will be relatively short lived and have
   a limited upside for Capers, panamax, Supramax, high/lows for Handies
   remaining relatively stable for reasons previously explained.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-01-24 20:22:32",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1100512_insight-world-crude-steel-production-via-cn65-.html","reginald.thompson@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1101457,"continuation of insinuating reva sleeps with sources
","(17:09) Bayless Parsley: you have been the latam analyst for like two 
seconds
(17:10) Bayless Parsley: how the fuck did you get all this
(17:10) Reva Bhalla: coffee  
(17:10) Bayless Parsley: so that's what they're calling it these days, huh
(17:10) Reva Bhalla: haha
(17:10) Reva Bhalla: shut the hell up
(17:10) Bayless Parsley: amazing
(17:12) Bayless Parsley: it's a good thing G doesn't want you as the new 
africa analyst
(17:12) Bayless Parsley: risk of AIDS is too high
(17:12) Reva Bhalla: OMG
(17:12) Reva Bhalla: BAYLESS
(17:12) Reva Bhalla: FUCKING
(17:12) Reva Bhalla: PARSLEY
(17:12) Bayless Parsley: ????
(17:12) Bayless Parsley: i'm talking about if you have an open cut
(17:12) Bayless Parsley: and your source, also has an open cut
(17:12) Bayless Parsley: and you accidentally bump into him with open cuts!!
(17:13) Reva Bhalla: haha i hate you
","2010-02-11 00:13:41",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1101457_continuation-of-insinuating-reva-sleeps-with-sources-.html","bayless.parsley@stratfor.com","","kevin.stech@stratfor.com",""
1102490,"[EastAsia] INSIGHT - CHINA - Growth - (via) CN65
","   **Source is actually an Ernst & Young Analyst writing to CN65.  Nothing
   ground-breaking, but confirmation of what we already know.

   SOURCE: CN65 (via CN65)
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator working in PNG
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2/3
   DISTRIBUTION: EA, Econ
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

   Some things about Chinese growth figures:

   -  they are a bit dodgy, because regional economies are told that they
   need, say, 10% growth, and voila, they report 10% growth
   -  statistics are still not accurate. for example, in 2007 (i think) the
   Chinese decided that its economy was suddenly 16% larger than what they
   thought it was.  The reporting of services sector output is still a bit
   dodgy
   -  i think the best way to forecast Chinese growth is from the supply
   side - ie. to look at their potential growth rate in terms of Labour Force
   growth + Productivity Growth = GDP and then have a think about the risks
   around that.  I always recommended a wide variance around China's growth
   forecast because the whole show could fall over because of the massive
   misallocations in the market (eg.  investment is directed at only certain
   industries, the exchange rate is held low to promote exports, interest
   rates are held at different levels in different industry sectors etc etc).
   -  So, until about 2015, you will see a continuation of the massive
   labour force growth (peasants coming in from the farms).  That said, wages
   and inflation are slowly starting to rise.   While labour productivity is
   still strong, capital productivity is starting to decline as China
   inevitably becomes a capital rich developed country.  The upshot is that
   10% is the absolute max that China can now grow given the current
   structure
   of the economy.  I would expect China to grow between 8-10% until 2015,
   then things will switch from the export sector to domestic demand,
   particularly as China commit to the pension reforms that will allow the
   people to spend more of their money (at the moment savings is 50% of
   GDP!!!!!).

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-01-24 14:09:16",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1102490_-eastasia-insight-china-growth-via-cn65-.html","colibasanu@stratfor.com","mailto:eastasia@stratfor.com","eastasia@stratfor.com,econ@stratfor.com",""
1102694,"[alpha] Body
","Airborne to CONUS

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
","2011-05-02 05:41:24",1,"2012-02-29 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1102694_-alpha-body-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1102718,"[alpha] Body bound for Dover, DE on CIA plane
","Than onward to the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in Bethesda.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
","2011-05-02 05:51:12",1,"2012-02-29 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1102718_-alpha-body-bound-for-dover-de-on-cia-plane-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1112549,"Fw: [CT] Assange-Manning Link Not Key to WikiLeaks Case
","   Not for Pub --

   We have a sealed indictment on Assange.

   Pls protect

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   Sender: ct-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:16:53 -0600
   To: CT AOR<ct@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [CT] Assange-Manning Link Not Key to WikiLeaks Case
   January 25, 2011 3:37 PM
   Assange-Manning Link Not Key to WikiLeaks Case

   http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20029521-503543.html

   A report that investigators have so far failed to establish a direct link
   between the founder of the document-dumping website WikiLeaks and the Army
   private accused of providing the site with hundreds of thousands of secret
   State Department cables won't derail the military's case as much as it
   might seem.

   The case against Army Pfc. Bradley Manning didn't hinge on investigators
   uncovering a direct link to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange anyway, CBS
   News National Security Correspondent David Martin reports.

   Special Section: WikiLeaks

   On Monday, NBC News reported that military officials said Manning couldn't
   be directly linked to Assange in allegedly handing off the cables and
   other secret documents that led to last summer's publication of the
   Afghanistan and Iraq war logs.

   But no one ever thought there was direct contact between Assange and
   Manning, Martin reports. Assange meeting or e-mailing Manning would be
   like the director of the Central Intelligence Agency meeting or e-mailing
   a CIA agent. The theory of the case is that Assange orchestrated the leak
   through cut outs deliberately designed to immunize himself from charges of
   espionage.

   In his own e-mails, Manning refers to himself as a source for Assange even
   though he did not give the documents to Assange but allegedly to a third
   person while home on Christmas leave, Martin reports.

   Attorney General Eric Holder has said the Justice Department was
   considering filing espionage charges in the case.

   Meanwhile, Manning continues to be held in a military brig while the Army
   considers prosecuting him. He has been charged with illegally obtaining
   more than 150,000 secret cables and giving more than 50 of them and a
   classified video to an unauthorized person.

   Manning's lawyer told The Associated Press Friday that a mental-health
   investigation to determine if Manning can stand trial will likely begin in
   February.
   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2011-01-26 15:23:28",1,"2012-01-29 16:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1112549_fw-ct-assange-manning-link-not-key-to-wikileaks-case-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","secure@stratfor.com",""
1115826,"Re: US Bank - Dirty Money
","   I have a cost. It is money spent on something and that has a profit.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Kevin Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 15:07:13 -0500 (CDT)
   To: <friedman@att.blackberry.net>; 'Karen Hooper'<hooper@stratfor.com>;
   'Sean Noonan'<sean.noonan@stratfor.com>; 'Secure
   List'<secure@stratfor.com>
   Subject: RE: US Bank - Dirty Money

   What do you mean by \"flow through effect\"

    

   From: George Friedman [mailto:friedman@att.blackberry.net]
   Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 15:05
   To: Kevin Stech; Karen Hooper; Sean Noonan; Secure List
   Subject: Re: US Bank - Dirty Money

    

   Those numbers assume a profit margin of 25 percent which is absurdly low.
   Moreover it fails to take into account that the primary cost is labor
   which has a massive flow through effect.

   The likely profit margin on drugs is about 80 percent for the primary
   transporter. No one is going to risk his life on a 25 percent margin deal.
   Youre better investing in other things without risk.

   Dying for a 25 percent return doesnt happen. Smuggle drugs is dramarically
   more profitable.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Kevin Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>

   Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 14:58:49 -0500 (CDT)

   To: 'Karen Hooper'<hooper@stratfor.com>; <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>;
   <secure@stratfor.com>

   Subject: RE: US Bank - Dirty Money

    

   The $40 bn estimate is revenues, not profits. The common profit estimates
   you see are in the $10 bn range.

    

   From: Karen Hooper [mailto:hooper@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:30
   To: sean.noonan@stratfor.com; secure@stratfor.com
   Subject: Re: US Bank - Dirty Money

    

   WF bought wachovia, and yeah, the case was settled last year with no
   criminal charges pursued. Sounds like Fred's contact is doing a follow up
   investigation. I'm less interested in the laundering so much as the size
   of it and where it ends up. The exit of that much money from Mexico is no
   small thing. We're never going to get a full picture of how the drug trade
   affects the financial system in Mex, but it's worth tracking the pieces.
   Also, the $40 bn estimate of drug profits has always seemed low, and these
   data points reinforce that.

   Sent from my iPhone

   On May 5, 2011, at 13:11, \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com> wrote:

     Btw, if this is new it is wells fargo not wachovia.

     WF already paid fines for some of these shenanigans

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>

     Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 11:55:57 -0500 (CDT)

     To: 'Secure List'<secure@stratfor.com>

     Subject: Re: US Bank - Dirty Money

      

     Two different things here: 1) The Wachovia bust detailed in the article
     I sent out said that Wachovia handled $378.4 bn in transfers from casas
     de cambio (CDC) in 2004-2007 that they're calling shady (though they
     haven't verified just HOW shady all of it is). 2) Fred's contact says
     his contact has seen $70 bn laundered as a part of an ongoing
     investigation, but we don't know yet know over what timeframe.

     Could be that the CDC transfers are majority legitimate, but why
     transfer cash TO the United States? Usually the flow of legitimate
     remittances goes the other way, and that's the amount the DEA case
     sanctioned Wachovia for failing to properly monitor under money
     laundering laws.

     I'll try to dig up more details from the Wachovia investigation.

      

     On 5/5/11 12:43 PM, scott stewart wrote:

     Wait, so it was way more than $70B?

      

     Maybe not all of that was cartel cash... 

      

     From: Karen Hooper [mailto:hooper@stratfor.com]
     Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:24 PM
     To: 'Secure List'
     Subject: Re: US Bank - Dirty Money

      

     Right. What i'm saying is that Wachovia ALONE handled ~$125 billion per
     year in shady cash from Mexico from 2004-2007. And that doesn't even
     count the money that stayed in cash, went to the Bahamas or stayed in
     Mexico.

     That makes the $40 bn per year stat seem pretty miniscule, no?
      

      

     On 5/5/11 12:00 PM, scott stewart wrote:

     That is $40B a year. Not all of it was laundered by one institution.
     Some is still physically hauled as bulk cash.

      

     From: Karen Hooper [mailto:hooper@stratfor.com]
     Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 11:45 AM
     To: Secure List
     Subject: Re: US Bank - Dirty Money

      

     Any word on the rate of flow? $70 bn is much bigger than the $40 billion
     estimates that we've seen over the years. 

      

     The volume of cash handled in the Wachovia case also suggests something
     on the order of $125 bn per year being laundered by a single method.
     That's a LOT of money, and a lot more than we've discussed.

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: burton@stratfor.com
     To: \"Karen Hooper\" <hooper@stratfor.com>, \"Secure List\"
     <secure@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2011 11:25:50 AM
     Subject: Re: US Bank - Dirty Money

     The money laundered was new, framed as exposing next week or words to
     that effect.

     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>

     Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 09:39:12 -0500 (CDT)

     To: Secure List<secure@stratfor.com>

     Subject: Re: US Bank - Dirty Money

      

     Over what timeframe did your contact handle that $70 billion?

     On 5/5/11 10:31 AM, burton@stratfor.com wrote:

     The GOM has hired the ex-CIA group to find additional monies laundered
     by Wachovia. Same group are being used against British Tobacco.

     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>

     Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 09:27:48 -0500 (CDT)

     To: Secure List<secure@stratfor.com>

     Subject: Re: US Bank - Dirty Money

      

     Here's a good one:

     How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs
     Ed Vulliamy
     The Observer,     Sunday 3 April 2011
     http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs

     A soldier guards marijuana that is being incinerated in Tijuana, Mexico.
     Photograph: Guillermo Arias/AP
     On 10 April 2006, a DC-9 jet landed in the port city of Ciudad del
     Carmen, on the Gulf of Mexico, as the sun was setting. Mexican soldiers,
     waiting to intercept it, found 128 cases packed with 5.7 tons of
     cocaine, valued at $100m. But something else - more important and
     far-reaching - was discovered in the paper trail behind the purchase of
     the plane by the Sinaloa narco-trafficking cartel.

     During a 22-month investigation by agents from the US Drug Enforcement
     Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and others, it emerged that
     the cocaine smugglers had bought the plane with money they had laundered
     through one of the biggest banks in the United States: Wachovia, now
     part of the giant Wells Fargo.

     The authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers,
     traveller's cheques and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into
     Wachovia accounts. Wachovia was put under immediate investigation for
     failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering programme. Of
     special significance was that the period concerned began in 2004, which
     coincided with the first escalation of violence along the US-Mexico
     border that ignited the current drugs war.

     Criminal proceedings were brought against Wachovia, though not against
     any individual, but the case never came to court. In March 2010,
     Wachovia settled the biggest action brought under the US bank secrecy
     act, through the US district court in Miami. Now that the year's
     \"deferred prosecution\" has expired, the bank is in effect in the clear.
     It paid federal authorities $110m in forfeiture, for allowing
     transactions later proved to be connected to drug smuggling, and
     incurred a $50m fine for failing to monitor cash used to ship 22 tons of
     cocaine.

     More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing
     to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of
     $378.4bn - a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico's gross national
     product - into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in
     Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business.

     \"Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international
     cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations,\"
     said Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor. Yet the total fine was less
     than 2% of the bank's $12.3bn profit for 2009. On 24 March 2010, Wells
     Fargo stock traded at $30.86 - up 1% on the week of the court
     settlement.

     The conclusion to the case was only the tip of an iceberg, demonstrating
     the role of the \"legal\" banking sector in swilling hundreds of billions
     of dollars - the blood money from the murderous drug trade in Mexico and
     other places in the world - around their global operations, now bailed
     out by the taxpayer.

     At the height of the 2008 banking crisis, Antonio Maria Costa, then head
     of the United Nations office on drugs and crime, said he had evidence to
     suggest the proceeds from drugs and crime were \"the only liquid
     investment capital\" available to banks on the brink of collapse.
     \"Inter-bank loans were funded by money that originated from the drugs
     trade,\" he said. \"There were signs that some banks were rescued that
     way.\"

     Wachovia was acquired by Wells Fargo during the 2008 crash, just as
     Wells Fargo became a beneficiary of $25bn in taxpayers' money.
     Wachovia's prosecutors were clear, however, that there was no suggestion
     Wells Fargo had behaved improperly; it had co-operated fully with the
     investigation. Mexico is the US's third largest international trading
     partner and Wachovia was understandably interested in this volume of
     legitimate trade.

     Jose Luis Marmolejo, who prosecuted those running one of the casas de
     cambio at the Mexican end, said: \"Wachovia handled all the transfers.
     They never reported any as suspicious.\"

     \"As early as 2004, Wachovia understood the risk,\" the bank admitted in
     the statement of settlement with the federal government, but, \"despite
     these warnings, Wachovia remained in the business\". There is, of course,
     the legitimate use of CDCs as a way into the Hispanic market. In 2005
     the World Bank said that Mexico was receiving $8.1bn in remittances.

     During research into the Wachovia Mexican case, the Observer obtained
     documents previously provided to financial regulators. It emerged that
     the alarm that was ignored came from, among other places, London, as a
     result of the diligence of one of the most important whistleblowers of
     our time. A man who, in a series of interviews with the Observer, adds
     detail to the documents, laying bare the story of how Wachovia was at
     the centre of one of the world's biggest money-laundering operations.

     Martin Woods, a Liverpudlian in his mid-40s, joined the London office of
     Wachovia Bank in February 2005 as a senior anti-money laundering
     officer. He had previously served with the Metropolitan police drug
     squad. As a detective he joined the money-laundering investigation team
     of the National Crime Squad, where he worked on the British end of the
     Bank of New York money-laundering scandal in the late 1990s.

     Woods talks like a police officer - in the best sense of the word:
     punctilious, exact, with a roguish humour, but moral at the core. He was
     an ideal appointment for any bank eager to operate a diligent and
     effective risk management policy against the lucrative scourge of high
     finance: laundering, knowing or otherwise, the vast proceeds of
     criminality, tax-evasion, and dealing in arms and drugs.

     Woods had a police officer's eye and a police officer's instincts - not
     those of a banker. And this influenced not only his methods, but his
     mentality. \"I think that a lot of things matter more than money - and
     that marks you out in a culture which appears to prevail in many of the
     banks in the world,\" he says.

     Woods was set apart by his modus operandi. His speciality, he explains,
     was his application of a \"know your client\", or KYC, policing strategy
     to identifying dirty money. \"KYC is a fundamental approach to anti-money
     laundering, going after tax evasion or counter-terrorist financing. Who
     are your clients? Is the documentation right? Good, responsible banking
     involved always knowing your customer and it still does.\"

     When he looked at Wachovia, the first thing Woods noticed was a
     deficiency in KYC information. And among his first reports to his
     superiors at the bank's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina, were
     observations on a shortfall in KYC at Wachovia's operation in London,
     which he set about correcting, while at the same time implementing what
     was known as an enhanced transaction monitoring programme, gathering
     more information on clients whose money came through the bank's offices
     in the City, in sterling or euros. By August 2006, Woods had identified
     a number of suspicious transactions relating to casas de cambio
     customers in Mexico.

     Primarily, these involved deposits of traveller's cheques in euros. They
     had sequential numbers and deposited larger amounts of money than any
     innocent travelling person would need, with inadequate or no KYC
     information on them and what seemed to a trained eye to be dubious
     signatures. \"It was basic work,\" he says. \"They didn't answer the
     obvious questions: 'Is the transaction real, or does it look synthetic?
     Does the traveller's cheque meet the protocols? Is it all there, and if
     not, why not?'\"

     Woods discussed the matter with Wachovia's global head of anti-money
     laundering for correspondent banking, who believed the cheques could
     signify tax evasion. He then undertook what banks call a \"look back\" at
     previous transactions and saw fit to submit a series of SARs, or
     suspicious activity reports, to the authorities in the UK and his
     superiors in Charlotte, urging the blocking of named parties and large
     series of sequentially numbered traveller's cheques from Mexico. He
     issued a number of SARs in 2006, of which 50 related to the casas de
     cambio in Mexico. To his amazement, the response from Wachovia's Miami
     office, the centre for Latin American business, was anything but
     supportive - he felt it was quite the reverse.

     As it turned out, however, Woods was on the right track. Wachovia's
     business in Mexico was coming under closer and closer scrutiny by US
     federal law enforcement. Wachovia was issued with a number of subpoenas
     for information on its Mexican operation. Woods has subsequently been
     informed that Wachovia had six or seven thousand subpoenas. He says this
     was \"An absurd number. So at what point does someone at the highest
     level not get the feeling that something is very, very wrong?\"

     In April and May 2007, Wachovia - as a result of increasing interest and
     pressure from the US attorney's office - began to close its relationship
     with some of the casas de cambio. But rather than launch an internal
     investigation into Woods's alerts over Mexico, Woods claims Wachovia
     hung its own money-laundering expert out to dry. The records show that
     during 2007 Woods \"continued to submit more SARs related to the casas de
     cambio\".

     In July 2007, all of Wachovia's remaining 10 Mexican casa de cambio
     clients operating through London suddenly stopped doing so. Later in
     2007, after the investigation of Wachovia was reported in the US
     financial media, the bank decided to end its remaining relationships
     with the Mexican casas de cambio globally. By this time, Woods says, he
     found his personal situation within the bank untenable; while the bank
     acted on one level to protect itself from the federal investigation into
     its shortcomings, on another, it rounded on the man who had been among
     the first to spot them.

     On 16 June Woods was told by Wachovia's head of compliance that his
     latest SAR need not have been filed, that he had no legal requirement to
     investigate an overseas case and no right of access to documents held
     overseas from Britain, even if they were held by Wachovia.

     Woods's life went into freefall. He went to hospital with a prolapsed
     disc, reported sick and was told by the bank that he not done so in the
     appropriate manner, as directed by the employees' handbook. He was off
     work for three weeks, returning in August 2007 to find a letter from the
     bank's compliance managing director, which was unrelenting in its tone
     and words of warning.

     The letter addressed itself to what the manager called \"specific
     examples of your failure to perform at an acceptable standard\". Woods,
     on the edge of a breakdown, was put on sick leave by his GP; he was
     later given psychiatric treatment, enrolled on a stress management
     course and put on medication.

     Late in 2007, Woods attended a function at Scotland Yard where
     colleagues from the US were being entertained. There, he sought out a
     representative of the Drug Enforcement Administration and told him about
     the casas de cambio, the SARs and his employer's reaction. The Federal
     Reserve and officials of the office of comptroller of currency in
     Washington DC then \"spent a lot of time examining the SARs\" that had
     been sent by Woods to Charlotte from London.

     \"They got back in touch with me a while afterwards and we began to put
     the pieces of the jigsaw together,\" says Woods. What they found was - as
     Costa says - the tip of the iceberg of what was happening to drug money
     in the banking industry, but at least it was visible and it had a name:
     Wachovia.

     In June 2005, the DEA, the criminal division of the Internal Revenue
     Service and the US attorney's office in southern Florida began
     investigating wire transfers from Mexico to the US. They were traced
     back to correspondent bank accounts held by casas de cambio at Wachovia.
     The CDC accounts were supervised and managed by a business unit of
     Wachovia in the bank's Miami offices.

     \"Through CDCs,\" said the court document, \"persons in Mexico can use hard
     currency and ... wire transfer the value of that currency to US bank
     accounts to purchase items in the United States or other countries. The
     nature of the CDC business allows money launderers the opportunity to
     move drug dollars that are in Mexico into CDCs and ultimately into the
     US banking system.

     \"On numerous occasions,\" say the court papers, \"monies were deposited
     into a CDC by a drug-trafficking organisation. Using false identities,
     the CDC then wired that money through its Wachovia correspondent bank
     accounts for the purchase of airplanes for drug-trafficking
     organisations.\" The court settlement of 2010 would detail that \"nearly
     $13m went through correspondent bank accounts at Wachovia for the
     purchase of aircraft to be used in the illegal narcotics trade. From
     these aircraft, more than 20,000kg of cocaine were seized.\"

     All this occurred despite the fact that Wachovia's office was in Miami,
     designated by the US government as a \"high-intensity money laundering
     and related financial crime area\", and a \"high-intensity drug
     trafficking area\". Since the drug cartel war began in 2005, Mexico had
     been designated a high-risk source of money laundering.

     \"As early as 2004,\" the court settlement would read, \"Wachovia
     understood the risk that was associated with doing business with the
     Mexican CDCs. Wachovia was aware of the general industry warnings. As
     early as July 2005, Wachovia was aware that other large US banks were
     exiting the CDC business based on [anti-money laundering] concerns ...
     despite these warnings, Wachovia remained in business.\"

     On 16 March 2010, Douglas Edwards, senior vice-president of Wachovia
     Bank, put his signature to page 10 of a 25-page settlement, in which the
     bank admitted its role as outlined by the prosecutors. On page 11, he
     signed again, as senior vice-president of Wells Fargo. The documents
     show Wachovia providing three services to 22 CDCs in Mexico: wire
     transfers, a \"bulk cash service\" and a \"pouch deposit service\", to
     accept \"deposit items drawn on US banks, eg cheques and traveller's
     cheques\", as spotted by Woods.

     \"For the time period of 1 May 2004 through 31 May 2007, Wachovia
     processed at least $$373.6bn in CDCs, $4.7bn in bulk cash\" - a total of
     more than $378.3bn, a sum that dwarfs the budgets debated by US state
     and UK local authorities to provide services to citizens.

     The document gives a fascinating insight into how the laundering of drug
     money works. It details how investigators \"found readily identifiable
     evidence of red flags of large-scale money laundering\". There were
     \"structured wire transfers\" whereby \"it was commonplace in the CDC
     accounts for round-number wire transfers to be made on the same day or
     in close succession, by the same wire senders, for the ... same
     account\".

     Over two days, 10 wire transfers by four individuals \"went though
     Wachovia for deposit into an aircraft broker's account. All of the
     transfers were in round numbers. None of the individuals of business
     that wired money had any connection to the aircraft or the entity that
     allegedly owned the aircraft. The investigation has further revealed
     that the identities of the individuals who sent the money were false and
     that the business was a shell entity. That plane was subsequently seized
     with approximately 2,000kg of cocaine on board.\"

     Many of the sequentially numbered traveller's cheques, of the kind dealt
     with by Woods, contained \"unusual markings\" or \"lacked any legible
     signature\". Also, \"many of the CDCs that used Wachovia's bulk cash
     service sent significantly more cash to Wachovia than what Wachovia had
     expected. More specifically, many of the CDCs exceeded their monthly
     activity by at least 50%.\"

     Recognising these \"red flags\", the US attorney's office in Miami, the
     IRS and the DEA began investigating Wachovia, later joined by FinCEN,
     one of the US Treasury's agencies to fight money laundering, while the
     office of the comptroller of the currency carried out a parallel
     investigation. The violations they found were, says the document,
     \"serious and systemic and allowed certain Wachovia customers to launder
     millions of dollars of proceeds from the sale of illegal narcotics
     through Wachovia accounts over an extended time period. The
     investigation has identified that at least $110m in drug proceeds were
     funnelled through the CDC accounts held at Wachovia.\"

     The settlement concludes by discussing Wachovia's \"considerable
     co-operation and remedial actions\" since the prosecution was initiated,
     after the bank was bought by Wells Fargo. \"In consideration of
     Wachovia's remedial actions,\" concludes the prosecutor, \"the United
     States shall recommend to the court ... that prosecution of Wachovia on
     the information filed ... be deferred for a period of 12 months.\"

     But while the federal prosecution proceeded, Woods had remained out in
     the cold. On Christmas Eve 2008, his lawyers filed tribunal proceedings
     against Wachovia for bullying and detrimental treatment of a
     whistleblower. The case was settled in May 2009, by which time Woods
     felt as though he was \"the most toxic person in the bank\". Wachovia
     agreed to pay an undisclosed amount, in return for which Woods left the
     bank and said he would not make public the terms of the settlement.

     After years of tribulation, Woods was finally formally vindicated,
     though not by Wachovia: a letter arrived from John Dugan, the
     comptroller of the currency in Washington DC, dated 19 March 2010 -
     three days after the settlement in Miami. Dugan said he was \"writing to
     personally recognise and express my appreciation for the role you played
     in the actions brought against Wachovia Bank for violations of the bank
     secrecy act ... Not only did the information that you provided
     facilitate our investigation, but you demonstrated great personal
     courage and integrity by speaking up. Without the efforts of individuals
     like you, actions such as the one taken against Wachovia would not be
     possible.\"

     The so-called \"deferred prosecution\" detailed in the Miami document is a
     form of probation whereby if the bank abides by the law for a year,
     charges are dropped. So this March the bank was in the clear. The week
     that the deferred prosecution expired, a spokeswoman for Wells Fargo
     said the parent bank had no comment to make on the documentation
     pertaining to Woods's case, or his allegations. She added that there was
     no comment on Sloman's remarks to the court; a provision in the
     settlement stipulated Wachovia was not allowed to issue public
     statements that contradicted it.

     But the settlement leaves a sour taste in many mouths - and certainly in
     Woods's. The deferred prosecution is part of this \"cop-out all round\",
     he says. \"The regulatory authorities do not have to spend any more time
     on it, and they don't have to push it as far as a criminal trial. They
     just issue criminal proceedings, and settle. The law enforcement people
     do what they are supposed to do, but what's the point? All those people
     dealing with all that money from drug-trafficking and murder, and no one
     goes to jail?\"

     One of the foremost figures in the training of anti-money laundering
     officers is Robert Mazur, lead infiltrator for US law enforcement of the
     Colombian Medellin cartel during the epic prosecution and collapse of
     the BCCI banking business in 1991 (his story was made famous by his
     memoir, The Infiltrator, which became a movie).

     Mazur, whose firm Chase and Associates works closely with law
     enforcement agencies and trains officers for bank anti-money laundering,
     cast a keen eye over the case against Wachovia, and he says now that
     \"the only thing that will make the banks properly vigilant to what is
     happening is when they hear the rattle of handcuffs in the boardroom\".

     Mazur said that \"a lot of the law enforcement people were disappointed
     to see a settlement\" between the administration and Wachovia. \"But I
     know there were external circumstances that worked to Wachovia's
     benefit, not least that the US banking system was on the edge of
     collapse.\"

     What concerns Mazur is that what law enforcement agencies and
     politicians hope to achieve against the cartels is limited, and falls
     short of the obvious attack the US could make in its war on drugs: go
     after the money. \"We're thinking way too small,\" Mazur says. \"I train
     law enforcement officers, thousands of them every year, and they say to
     me that if they tried to do half of what I did, they'd be arrested. But
     I tell them: 'You got to think big. The headlines you will be reading in
     seven years' time will be the result of the work you begin now.' With
     BCCI, we had to spend two years setting it up, two years doing
     undercover work, and another two years getting it to trial. If they want
     to do something big, like go after the money, that's how long it takes.\"

     But Mazur warns: \"If you look at the career ladders of law enforcement,
     there's no incentive to go after the big money. People move every two to
     three years. The DEA is focused on drug trafficking rather than money
     laundering. You get a quicker result that way - they want to get the
     traffickers and seize their assets. But this is like treating a sick
     plant by cutting off a few branches - it just grows new ones. Going
     after the big money is cutting down the plant - it's a harder door to
     knock on, it's a longer haul, and it won't get you the short-term
     riches.\"

      

     The office of the comptroller of the currency is still examining whether
     individuals in Wachovia are criminally liable. Sources at FinCEN say
     that a so-called \"look-back\" is in process, as directed by the
     settlement and agreed to by Wachovia, into the $378.4bn that was not
     directly associated with the aircraft purchases and cocaine hauls, but
     neither was it subject to the proper anti-laundering checks. A FinCEN
     source says that $20bn already examined appears to have \"suspicious
     origins\". But this is just the beginning.

     Antonio Maria Costa, who was executive director of the UN's office on
     drugs and crime from May 2002 to August 2010, charts the history of the
     contamination of the global banking industry by drug and criminal money
     since his first initiatives to try to curb it from the European
     commission during the 1990s. \"The connection between organised crime and
     financial institutions started in the late 1970s, early 1980s,\" he says,
     \"when the mafia became globalised.\"

     Until then, criminal money had circulated largely in cash, with the
     authorities making the occasional, spectacular \"sting\" or haul. During
     Costa's time as director for economics and finance at the EC in
     Brussels, from 1987, inroads were made against penetration of banks by
     criminal laundering, and \"criminal money started moving back to cash,
     out of the financial institutions and banks. Then two things happened:
     the financial crisis in Russia, after the emergence of the Russian
     mafia, and the crises of 2003 and 2007-08.

     \"With these crises,\" says Costa, \"the banking sector was short of
     liquidity, the banks exposed themselves to the criminal syndicates, who
     had cash in hand.\"

     Costa questions the readiness of governments and their regulatory
     structures to challenge this large-scale corruption of the global
     economy: \"Government regulators showed what they were capable of when
     the issue suddenly changed to laundering money for terrorism - on that,
     they suddenly became serious and changed their attitude.\"

     Hardly surprising, then, that Wachovia does not appear to be the end of
     the line. In August 2010, it emerged in quarterly disclosures by HSBC
     that the US justice department was seeking to fine it for anti-money
     laundering compliance problems reported to include dealings with Mexico.

      

     \"Wachovia had my resume, they knew who I was,\" says Woods. \"But they did
     not want to know - their attitude was, 'Why are you doing this?' They
     should have been on my side, because they were compliance people, not
     commercial people. But really they were commercial people all along.
     We're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. This is the biggest
     money-laundering scandal of our time.

     \"These are the proceeds of murder and misery in Mexico, and of drugs
     sold around the world,\" he says. \"All the law enforcement people wanted
     to see this come to trial. But no one goes to jail. \"What does the
     settlement do to fight the cartels? Nothing - it doesn't make the job of
     law enforcement easier and it encourages the cartels and anyone who
     wants to make money by laundering their blood dollars. Where's the risk?
     There is none.

     \"Is it in the interest of the American people to encourage both the drug
     cartels and the banks in this way? Is it in the interest of the Mexican
     people? It's simple: if you don't see the correlation between the money
     laundering by banks and the 30,000 people killed in Mexico, you're
     missing the point.\"

     Woods feels unable to rest on his laurels. He tours the world for a
     consultancy he now runs, Hermes Forensic Solutions, counselling and
     speaking to banks on the dangers of laundering criminal money, and how
     to spot and stop it. \"New York and London,\" says Woods, \"have become the
     world's two biggest laundries of criminal and drug money, and offshore
     tax havens. Not the Cayman Islands, not the Isle of Man or Jersey. The
     big laundering is right through the City of London and Wall Street.

     \"After the Wachovia case, no one in the regulatory community has sat
     down with me and asked, 'What happened?' or 'What can we do to avoid
     this happening to other banks?' They are not interested. They are the
     same people who attack the whistleblowers and this is a position the
     [British] Financial Services Authority at least has adopted on legal
     advice: it has been advised that the confidentiality of banking and
     bankers takes primacy over the public information disclosure act. That
     is how the priorities work: secrecy first, public interest second.

     \"Meanwhile, the drug industry has two products: money and suffering. On
     one hand, you have massive profits and enrichment. On the other, you
     have massive suffering, misery and death. You cannot separate one from
     the other.

     \"What happened at Wachovia was symptomatic of the failure of the entire
     regulatory system to apply the kind of proper governance and adequate
     risk management which would have prevented not just the laundering of
     blood money, but the global crisis.\"

     On 5/4/11 9:29 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     this is in OS. 

     Many big stories on it. 

     On 5/4/11 7:53 PM, Fred Burton wrote:

 One of my trusted former CIA cronies reports Wachovia laundered $70

 billion (yes billion) for the MX drug cartels per an on-going

 investigation.  His company has been hired by the MX govt to look for

 drug money.

  

  

      

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2011-05-05 22:12:26",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1115826_re-us-bank-dirty-money-.html","friedman@att.blackberry.net","","kevin.stech@stratfor.com",""
1116544,"Re: Insight--for internal use only--On pain of agony
","   No wonder Medvedev has 2 trips planned to Turkey this spring..... Russia
   will try to take advantage.

   Reva Bhalla wrote:

     yes... turkey isn't only using Iran as the cause for the break. look at
     turkey's public outrage over the Israeli offensive in Gaza as an
     example. Turkey is already pretty tight with Russia, but this doesn't
     mean Turkey has to necessarily get closer to Russia. Turkey will play
     nice with the Russians but also wants to show it can play on its own
     On Feb 20, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

       I meant to say, if not for Iran, would he look for other
       places/weaknesses in the US/Israel relationship to cause a break? 
       And, if he did break with these two, would it mean necessarily that he
       would move closer to Russia?

       Reva Bhalla wrote:

         US and Israel are the ones that matter. it's about redefining
         Turkey's role as an independent power
         On Feb 20, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

           Erdogan is looking to break with the US and Israel?  Are there
           other possible places he could do this, if he is actively trying?

           George Friedman wrote:

             Turkey would break with israel and the united states. It would
             be an opportunity erdogan is looking for. 

             Iran would become more visible but not more powerful. A year
             after the attack its underlying weakness would still be there
             and its dependence on turkey greater. 

             In my view the ourtcome of this is turkish power. But remeber,
             my insight is not that israel will attack. Its that kissinger
             thinks they will attack. Huge difference. 

             $

             Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

             From: \"Kamran Bokhari\" <bokhari@stratfor.com>
             Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:55:16 +0000
             To: Secure List<secure@stratfor.com>
             Subject: Re: Insight--for internal use only--On pain of agony
             All my sources - regardless of factional affiliation - are
             convinced that Iran is preparing for war and one that will make
             the regime more stronger. Did you see Bob Baer make the same
             argument in TIME? Any attack on Iran will make it very difficult
             for Turkey. It will be forced to take a stand against the war
             and there could be trouble with the United States. Such a
             conflict will be a test of Turkey's resurgence and moves towards
             a more independent foreign policy. 

             ---

             Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

             From: \"George Friedman\" <friedman@att.blackberry.net>
             Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:47:49 +0000
             To: Kamran Bokhari<bokhari@stratfor.com>; George
             Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>; Secure
             List<secure@stratfor.com>
             Subject: Re: Insight--for internal use only--On pain of agony
             I believe th us will premempt. But there is no clear time line.

             Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

             From: \"Kamran Bokhari\" <bokhari@stratfor.com>
             Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:43:38 +0000
             To: George Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>; Secure
             List<secure@stratfor.com>
             Subject: Re: Insight--for internal use only--On pain of agony
             Understood. What is your own assessment of the view that the
             Israelis will attack?

             ---

             Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

             From: George Friedman <gfriedman@stratfor.com>
             Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:41:03 -0600
             To: Secure List<secure@stratfor.com>
             Subject: Insight--for internal use only--On pain of agony
             Internal use only

             Some nuggets from meeting:

             Kissinger believes that the Israelis are in a panic and will
             attack Iran.  Erdogan has made it clear to him that he plans to
             break with Israel at some point and reorient toward the Islamic
             world. He intends to be their leader.  Paul Volcker regards the
             Greek crisis as potentially a mortal blow for the EU. He would
             like to see an IMF tranche.  He also said that Nicholas Brady is
             behind both this and the Volcker principles Obama adopted.  When
             I asked Brady how he expects to get the the U.S. to go along
             with an IMF bailout, he shrugged and said they won't, but that's
             the only choice.  Volcker is now doubtful the Euro can survive. 
             Brady is convinced it will.  Kissinger thinks Volcker and Brady
             are missing the real crisis which is in Iran and potentially
             Russia. Volcker also says that the Bank of England and the
             French will go along with the Volcker rules on an international
             basis--that is returning to a variety of Glass-Steagal.  The
             Japanese will do whatever is said, and in Germany only Deutsche
             Bank really makes decisions. Sarkozy told him he would come in. 
             So there may be an international convention on restructuring
             banks under way--Volcker is pretty careful in what he says and
             doesn't promote himself more than the average bear, so this may
             be the case.  Nick Brady thinks so too.

             Total confusion on situation in China, but more on Obama.  They
             don't understand who is running China policy. The decision to
             meet with the Dalia Lama strikes them as particularly bizarre. 
             But China is the least of the discussion.  It is about Greece
             and Iran.  China is kind of an afterthought.

             I asked Tim Reed who ran Resolution Trust Corporation during the
             S&L crisis under Nick Brady whether a new RTC would have been
             better as a supplement to TARP and he agreed but said that
             Paulsen was so panicked he wasn't thinking and Bernaecke and he
             were just responding.  

             One sense I'm getting here is that the American elite, along
             with Europe's, China's and just about everyone but Russia's his
             suffering from three problems:  First, none are really aware of
             the political pressures on other elites.  Second, they
             completely misunderstand the alienation of the publics, three,
             except for Volcker, they think this can be handled by the elites
             among themselves.  We have a crisis of the elites, in my view.  

             I get to hold forth in an hour or so, and I'm going to argue
             that Iran is going out of control because of the elite crisis. 
             No decision making is going on and the decisions that are being
             made won't be supported in the public. The only country that is
             acting decisively and can do so is Russia.

             This is for our own internal use.  This must not be published or
             discussed outside Stratfor.
             -- 
             George Friedman
             Founder and CEO
             Stratfor
             700 Lavaca Street
             Suite 900
             Austin, Texas 78701
             Phone  512-744-4319
             Fax  512-744-4334

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director, Stratfor
 US Mobile: (512) 422-9335
 China Mobile: (86) 15801890731
 Email: richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com



    

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director, Stratfor
 US Mobile: (512) 422-9335
 China Mobile: (86) 15801890731
 Email: richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com



    

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-02-20 20:37:58",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1116544_re-insight-for-internal-use-only-on-pain-of-agony-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","bokhari@stratfor.com,richmond@stratfor.com,reva.bhalla@stratfor.com,friedman@att.blackberry.net,secure@stratfor.com",""
1120794,"INSIGHT - RUSSIA - nationalism
","    

   CODE: RU157
   PUBLICATION:  yes/background
   ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in Moscow
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Kremlin thinktank
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
   DISSEMINATION: Analysts
   HANDLER: Lauren

    

   There is a massive rise in nationalism, but it must be carefully
   explained.

   There is a clear difference between Russian Muslims and Foreign Muslims.

    

   Social discrimination is not about religion. It isn't about being Muslim.
   It is about being a part of a different culture. For example, those
   nationals protesting in the squares recently weren't protesting Islam, but
   different cultures and terrorism. (We discussed how this was different
   than the protests in the US, like the Mosque protest. Those protests were
   against Mosques and Islam-not about them being socially different.)

    

   Muslims live in pockets in Moscow and do not conform to Russian society.
   They are considered criminal and disruptive. Even their kids are
   considered poor students and disruptive in schools.

    

   So the nationals are first against different cultural identities, and then
   second against religious identities.

    
   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-02-23 17:13:55",1,"2012-02-29 12:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1120794_insight-russia-nationalism-.html","michael.wilson@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1142108,"Re: INSIGHT-BOLIVIA-St. Dept source's take on Morales
","Back in the day, we would have been planning his (and Chavez's)
helicopter \"accident.\"  Guess I'm getting old, I think its best to keep
these lads around for comic relief.  Evo and Chevez belong in the US
Congress and could probably get elected.

Korena Zucha wrote:
> SOURCE CODE: BOL701
> ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR security source
> SOURCE DESCRIPTION: State Dept. source in Bolivia
> PUBLICATION: if desired
> SOURCE RELIABILITY: Still testing
> ITEM CREDIBILITY: Still testing
> DISTRIBUTION: Secure
> SPECIAL HANDLING:  None
> SOURCE HANDLER: Fred
> 
> In response to Evo Morales saying 'Chicken causes baldness and
> homosexuality'--
> 
> Evo says stupid things every day, but the local media here (which is
> under his thumb) protects him in their 'lack of reporting' or twisting
> it for disinformation purposes.  Unfortunately for him, he was
> addressing an international audience so he could not be protected by his
> lackey media drones from the international press.  For the first time,
> the world got to see firsthand what a buffoon this 4th grade educated,
> narco-trafficking, murderous thug is.  He is NOT the messiah and genius
> that everyone touts him to be.  His rhetoric is anti-US and
> anti-Capitalism, so he is the darling to the ultra-left and self-hating
> US citizens (Danny Glover, Sean Penn, Oliver Stone, etc.)  He is
> destroying Bolivia like Chavez is destroying Venezuela.  However, there
> are now chinks in his armor.  His recent hypocrisy was to dispatch his
> Minister of Finance last week to the US to engage those 'evil
> capitalists' there to invest in Bolivia.  And, this was only a few days
> after he lashed out (ala MO of Fidel Castro) on the evils of capitalism
> and how the US was responsible for everything bad in the world.  Over
> the weekend, Evo announced his government is engaging Vietnam and North
> Korea to establish formal diplomatic relations with them, open embassies
> and exchange ambassadors in an attempt to strengthen socialist
> governments to destroy the US and capitalism.  He speaks of Robert
> Mugabe as a 'dear freedom fighter' who is doing great things for
> Zimbabwe.  If George W. Bush made a stupid statement like his
> genetically modified chicken (and drinking Coca Cola, consuming Alka
> Shelzer, both were made in his diatribes but omitted by the media), the
> MSM (CNN, MSBNC, et all) would beat this Bush statement to death.  You
> hear nothing from them when idiots like Chavez and Evo speak.  This
> media bias is the double standard the left-leaning MSM media is guilty
> of.  If they were doing their job, instead of being coconspirators in
> their liberal politics, FoxNews would not be needed to balance out
> objectivity.  Finally, the nomination of Evo for the Nobel Peace Prize
> was just formally accepted yesterday as a result for his \"Mother Earth\"
> Summit [aka, vehement anti-US, anti-Capitalism (specifically targeting
> Coca Cola), anti-UN, pro-coca (sic cocaine) and narco-trafficking
> platform that was embraced by 22,000 anti-US, left-wing anarchists in
> attendance] as a result of the recent Climate Change Summit in Cochabamba.
","2010-04-27 19:06:01",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1142108_re-insight-bolivia-st-dept-source-s-take-on-morales-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","zucha@stratfor.com,secure@stratfor.com",""
1144263,"Re: [latam] tasking - CHINA/ARGENTINA/ECON - China concerned about
 Argentina's protectionist trend: official
","   paulo sergio gregoire wrote:

     There is a lot of good and cheap land available in the states of Piaui,
     Tocantins, Mato Grosso do Sul and Mato Grosso. These states have
     attracted many farmers from southern Brazil in the last years. The
     governor of Mato Grosso is the one of the biggest soybeans producers in
     the world and he is also from the south. It is a growing business in
     Brazil.
     Argentina has had trade disputes with everyone, including Brazil. Last
     year, they wanted to impose a quota on electronics coming from Brazil
     because they want to develop their own industry in southern Argentina.
     This current Argentine administration hasn't paid much attention to the
     agricultural business, which has caused a lot of discontentment in the
     agricultural sector.

     Karen Hooper wrote:

       Does Brazil have the excess capacity to completely replace Argentina's
       exports to China? This would be pretty devastating to the argentine
       agricultural sector (which, i might add is at extreme odds with the
       government, and their policies are not at all in lockstep). On the
       other hand, China is a HUGE market, and there are only a handful of
       places in the world that produce soybeans. If Brazil radically ramped
       up production, are there other markets that would absorb Argentine
       soy? Seems plausible, every time i turn around they're making
       something new out of soy....

       On 4/22/10 9:47 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

         depends on what the Chinese do. If they significantly cut Argentine
         soy imports, where is Argentina going to find that big of a
         replacement market?
         On Apr 22, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Peter Zeihan wrote:

           so there've been brewing trade frictions for some time then

           not exactly a shocker i guess -- arg has been seeing its trade
           position wither everywhere, with only brazil maintaining and only
           china expanding their interactions, makes sense that china would
           therefore be the point of most friction

           see any breakpoints coming?

           Reva Bhalla wrote:

             here is the timeline:
             last year, when the global econ crisis was hitting hard,
             Argentina passed two anti-dumping measures against China to try
             and mitigate their widening trade deficit with China. 
             Then, on April 1, China said Argentina oil contains unacceptably
             high traces of solvents.  Argentina said that's BS.  Then less
             than a couple weeks later, China transferred the right to issue
             permits for soy imports to the Ministry of Commerce. By giving
             this authority to central authorities, the Chinese govt is able
             to place tighter restrictions on these imports.
             Argentina supplied China with 77% of their soy last year.
              Brazil and the US would be pretty eager to make up the
             difference, though China seems to also be using this to boost
             its domestic soy industry.  China hasn't stopped importing soy
             from Argentina amid this trade dispute, but reports indicate
             that the imports have slowed. 
             On Apr 22, 2010, at 8:05 AM, Peter Zeihan wrote:

               think i'm getting lost

               so china complained that arg soy is contaminated, so arg
               responded to the complaint by launching a couple anti-dumping
               investigations which china feels are protectionist?

               Reva Bhalla wrote:

                 and Brazil stands to gain from this. They've already said
                 that they'll replace the Argentine soy to China with their
                 own
                 On Apr 22, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Matt Gertken wrote:

                   It's about the soy issue. The Chinese have threatened
                   countermeasures on Argentine soybeans saying the hexane
                   levels are too high (they officially raised the issue in
                   late March). They are responding to Argentina's initiation
                   of two anti-dumping investigations against Chinese
                   imports. 

                   Not sure about your point on protectionism -- the Chinese
                   have been using this term, and accusing everyone of doing
                   it, since at least the Sept G20 meeting if not before.
                   This is their mantra right now -- everyone is
                   protectionist except China. 

                   Peter Zeihan wrote:

                     no idea -- let's find out

                     Jennifer Richmond wrote:

                       Does this have anything to do with the ongoing soy
                       issue?  I think it is stemming from this and is a
                       one-off issue and not indicative of a growing trend.

                       Peter Zeihan wrote:

                         let's find out what -- its not so much that Arg is a
                         canary in the coal mine for anything, but there's
                         three things that come to mine

                         1) china in the past has offered credit outside of
                         intl norms to Arg -- has that happened? is it in
                         danger?
                         2) Arg has massively de-industrialized in recent
                         years -- this suggests that there may be a
                         (successful?) effort to reverse that trend -- if
                         there is we need to understand it
                         3) China is playing with fire whenever it uses the
                         word 'protectionist' -- i doubt they used it lightly

                         bottom line: could be several interesting things
                         going on here

                         Chris Farnham wrote:

                           China concerned about Argentina's protectionist    
                           trend: official                                    

                     English.news.cn                                             
                     2010-04-22        [IMG]Feedback[IMG]Print[IMG]RSS[IMG][IMG]
                     13:36:38          

                           http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-04/22/c_13262679.htm

                           BUENOS AIRES, April 21 (Xinhua) -- China is
                           concerned about Argentina's growing tendency to
                           impose protectionist measures on Chinese products,
                           which has already hurt bilateral ties, a Chinese
                           trade official said.

                           Visiting Chinese Vice Commerce Minister Jiang
                           Yaoping made the comments in an interview with
                           Xinhua Tuesday here in Buenos Aires before leaving
                           the South American nation after a 48-hour visit.

                           -- 

                           Chris Farnham
                           Watch Officer/Beijing Correspondent , STRATFOR
                           China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
                           Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
                           www.stratfor.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director, Stratfor
 US Mobile: (512) 422-9335
 China Mobile: (86) 15801890731
 Email: richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com



  

       --
       Karen Hooper
       Director of Operations
       STRATFOR
       www.stratfor.com
","2010-04-22 16:27:18",1,"2012-03-05 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1144263_re-latam-tasking-china-argentina-econ-china-concerned-about.html","paulo.gregoire@stratfor.com","mailto:latam@stratfor.com","latam@stratfor.com",""
1146487,"Re: OBL take -- quick response needed
","   ISI should know by now since they have the homeowner.  There is much more
   to the story on The Courier which ISI doesn't know. 

   On 5/13/2011 6:18 PM, Kamran Bokhari wrote:

     You know this reminds me of a discussion I had on NPR's Diane Rehm Show
     back in July '07. I was on with Peter Brookes (former deputy assistant
     secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific affairs in the second Bush
     administration) and the State Dept's current CT Coordinator, Daniel
     Benjamin. These two guys kept saying how ObL was in the tribal belt
     while I argued that he was much deeper in K-P province. God knows how
     many years were wasted chasing the sob in the tribal belt.

     On 5/13/2011 7:04 PM, Fred Burton wrote:

       The investigative key would be two prong to uncover the links to Paki
       ISI and Mil:

       1) The Homeowner

       2) The Courier

       Both are known quantities.

       On 5/13/2011 5:56 PM, Kamran Bokhari wrote:

         Could be anyone of Lt. Col or below rank. Then again it could be a
         retired military officer still serving as a civie in the
         directorate. Or a consultant/contractor who work in the field. Or
         even a civilian official (60 percent are civilians in the ISI).
         Since most army officers including the chief are deputed to the ISI
         for a max of 3 years, we are really talking about people who are
         career intel officers. Then there is a large cadre of retired army
         personnel outside the security establishment. Good luck sifting
         through the jungle.

         On 5/13/2011 5:29 PM, Fred Burton wrote:

           Not further specified.  But, it may help explain why the ISI chief
           has offered to resign, which is the noble way out.  He can be the
           fall guy for domestic consumption.   It would be best if he
           defected. 

           On 5/13/2011 4:23 PM, Kamran Bokhari wrote:

             What does source mean by mid to senior level. As for retired, I
             can think of a number of them. So, that is not really
             surprising. 

             On 5/13/2011 2:27 PM, burton@stratfor.com wrote:

               Same response as before:

               Mid to senior level ISI and Pak Mil with one retired Pak Mil
               General that had knowledge of the OBL arrangements and safe
               house.

               Names unk to me and not provided.

               Specific ranks unk to me and not provided.

               But, I get a very clear sense we (US intel) know names and
               ranks.

               I also do not know if we have passed this info to the GOP.

               If I was in command, I would not pass the info to the GOP,
               because we can't trust them. I would piece meal the names off
               and bury in a list of other non-related names for internal ISI
               traces in a non-alerting fashion, to see what the Pakis tell
               us.

               I may also trade one or two names for the captured tail
               rudder.

               Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

               From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
               Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 12:22:31 -0500 (CDT)
               To: Kamran Bokhari<bokhari@stratfor.com>
               Cc: Sean Noonan<sean.noonan@stratfor.com>; Secure
               List<secure@stratfor.com>
               Subject: Re: OBL take -- quick response needed
               I may be able to get that, let me ask. 

               On 5/13/2011 12:21 PM, Kamran Bokhari wrote:

                 No surprises here. We will never find out their departments
                 but their ranks would be very telling.

                 On 5/13/2011 11:19 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

                   awesome.  Please see what you can find out about what kind
                   of department they are in, or area they cover. 

                   On 5/13/11 9:58 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

 More on # 3 --

 Several w/in ISI and Pak Mil, less than 12.

 More on this later.


 On 5/12/2011 3:26 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

 1 specific operational plans

 2 communications with franchise groups (like AQAP)

 3 connections to anyone associated with the Pakistani state


 ------Original Message------
 From: Fred Burton
 To: Secure List
 Subject: OBL take -- quick response needed
 Sent: May 12, 2011 15:25

 I can get access to the materials seized from the OBL safe house.

 What are the top (not 45) questions we want addressed?


                   --

                   Sean Noonan

                   Tactical Analyst

                   Office: +1 512-279-9479

                   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

                   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

                   www.stratfor.com

                 --

             --

         --

     --
","2011-05-14 01:47:27",1,"2012-02-27 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1146487_re-obl-take-quick-response-needed-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","bokhari@stratfor.com,sean.noonan@stratfor.com,secure@stratfor.com","attach/6/6434_Signature.JPG"
1148174,"MORE (reply from CN65) Re: INSIGHT - CHINA/MINING - new source(s)
","   SOURCE: CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator.  Source is 
   well-connected politically, militarily and economically.  He has become a
   private businessman helping foreign companies with M&As
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
   DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

   I think that small companies cannot compete in terms of technology or
   capital.  Of that there is no doubt.  But where foreign companies do get
   access to tenements, they always seem to lose out because the mining
   sector in China is one of the most corrupt sectors of all.
   In witness of the latter point consider a recent case that came to light
   in China about May 25-26 in the China Daily.  It involved a suit brought
   by a local magistrate against a mining company owner in Southern China for
   profits he claims should have been distributed out of the mine.  The
   magistrate was a shareholder.
   The company owner disputed the claim on the basis that the magistrate had
   somehow forfeited or abandoned his shares in the company (there seems to
   have been some capital reconstruction at some stage in the past).  The
   main reason for this argument was that in 2005 (?) the government had
   prohibited government officials, and especially magistrates, from being
   shareholders in mining companies because of the endemic corruption this
   engendered.
   The magistrate won his case. The company owner was seeking an appeal.
    Informed commentary said that the magistrate was entitled to win in
   contract law, but the local court in the area had failed to consider the
   fact he should not have had any shareholding at all.
   This is the supervening corruption which makes issues of government policy
   of marginal importance.
   Ironically, this corruption is one of the impediments to Chinese interests
   not having accumulated even greater stakes in the resources sector in
   Australia.  They simply cannot get it in their heads that the rule of law
   applies to mining projects in Australia.  They refuse to believe that they
   have a right to receive a mining lease subject only to complying with
   relevant environmental permitting conditions.  They think you have no
   credibility unless you tell them they need to bribe someone!!!

   Antonia Colibasanu wrote:

     Source code: New acquaintance 
     Publication: If so desired but more useful as back ground info
     Source description: Source has worked for a number of Chinese mining
     groups and works in close contact with the Ministry of Land and
     Resources
     Attribution: Mining source in China
     Source reliability: B/C (source is new to me)
     Item credibility: 1-2 (pretty commonly held knowledge)
     Distribution: analysts
     Source handler: Chris

     Chit chat from a BBQ last night. 
     Source tells me: 
     - of a foreign company that had paid for prospecting rights near Dalian
     and when they finally found gold the government told them that they
     couldn't dig it up for environmental reasons. Now of course the Chinese
     are getting ready to dig it up. 
     Another group (who I know the GM of as well) who had gone through 7
     years of prep, building local infrastructure, getting screwed by local
     forms and extorted by the local security orgs was finally ready to begin
     extraction when the Chinese gave them some BS reason and kicked them out
     of the project. The Chinese are now of course removing that gold from
     the ground themselves. 
     Local mining interests have pressured the government to block foreign
     mining investment because the locals cannot compete with foreign
     technology. 
     Another chap at the BBQ, a foreigner who seems to be pretty with it here
     and runs a pretty profitable marketing/PR firm tells me that he has been
     in the \"war room\" of CIC and says that it was breathe taking. He says
     that divided up in to industries are all the companies that export to
     China and there are internal departments that collect share holder info
     for each company and who's task it is to buy up ownership of said
     exporters to China. 
     Will be chatting to these guys more down the track. 

     --

     Chris Farnham
     Watch Officer/Beijing Correspondent , STRATFOR
     China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
     Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
     www.stratfor.com

     --

     Chris Farnham
     Watch Officer/Beijing Correspondent , STRATFOR
     China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
     Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
     www.stratfor.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director, Stratfor
 US Mobile: (512) 422-9335
 China Mobile: (86) 15801890731
 Email: richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2010-06-07 17:42:55",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1148174_more-reply-from-cn65-re-insight-china-mining-new-source-s-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1149294,"Confed Fuckhouse
"," --
 Matthew Powers
 STRATFOR Senior Researcher
 Matthew.Powers@stratfor.com
","2011-04-04 23:14:10",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1149294_confed-fuckhouse-.html","matthew.powers@stratfor.com","","kevin.stech@stratfor.com","attach/102/102203_stratfor - confederation program.xlsx"
1153776,"Re: INSIGHT - Turkey used UAVs during the Iraqi incursion [follow-up
	of discussion - Re: guidance on Turkey]
","   he says Turkey doesn't need Israeli assistance to fly them. (thus, Israeli
   decision to pull UAV instructors is not damaging). but of course, Turks
   may need Israeli help to fix if there is a technical problem in UAVs.

   Reva Bhalla wrote:

     so this source is claiming that Turkey doesn't need Israeli assistance
     for the UAVs?
     On Jun 17, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Antonia Colibasanu wrote:

       ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR source
       SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Confederation source  - Sabah (pro-government)
       PUBLICATION: Yes
       SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
       ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
       DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
       SPECIAL HANDLING: None
       SOURCE HANDLER: Emre

       Source says UAVs took off from the UAV air base in Batman (a
       southeastern province of Turkey) and provided real-time intelligence
       to the Turkish army during Turkish commandos' incursion to the
       Northern Iraq yesterday. Turkish army's press release implies this as
       well [it says they watched the operation live.emre.] No idea on how
       many UAVs were sent to Iraq. Source thinks that Turkey has the
       necessary technical capability to fly these birds. [there were reports
       few weeks ago that UAVs bought from Israel were transferred to the UAV
       air base in Batman.emre]

       George Friedman wrote:

         On the uav's. They got them. They don't know how to use and maintain
         them. Its a problem.

         Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: Emre Dogru <emre.dogru@stratfor.com>
         Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:49:39 -0500 (CDT)
         To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
         Subject: Re: guidance on Turkey
         Turks realized that the initial passion needs to be backed with
         actions and Turkey cannot easily do that now. Turkey keeps repeating
         that no military treaty was canceled. The biggest threat that I've
         seen so far is to decrease level of diplomatic ties, which is not
         much of a threat. This what creates fissure between Gulen and Akp,
         because Gulen does not want the relations detoriated only due to
         Erdogan's rhetoric, which they think mainly for domestic political
         reasons.
         Agree that Pkk is becoming an increasingly pressing issue (I can
         tell you how Erdogan is nervous about this and how he lashes out at
         every one) But Israel's decision to pull UAV instructors is not
         huge. It doesn't make Turkey looser. After all Turkey got six of
         them and will get remaining four. Turkey will be able to fly them,
         at worst with a little delay. Also, we don't know yet the extent to
         which UAVs would be effective against Pkk. Plus, Turkey relies on
         real time intel sharing with the us more than Israel. If Israel
         starts to lobby on the US to stop this mechanism, that would be the
         nightmare of Erdogan.
         Chp has a long way to go to gain on Akp for the moment. Their main
         criticism is gov's inability on Gaza and Akp knows this. Also, we
         have a const amendment package debate ahead, I am sure Erdogan has
         several scenarios for that. 

         Sent from my iPhone
         On Jun 16, 2010, at 17:38, George Friedman <gfriedman@stratfor.com>
         wrote:

           The things I didn't want to write from the region.

           The Turks have taken a tremendous beating and the Israelis have
           come out in remarkably good position.  

           First, on the tactical side, the Israeli-Turkish intelligence
           sharing agreement required that the Turks screen the passengers on
           the ships.  This screening took place but the Israelis have now
           shown the Turks and others intelligence that the Turks either (1)
           failed to detect the intentions of a group of people in the
           flotilla or their backgrounds) (2) detected it and failed to tell
           either Israel or the United States or (3) intentionally deceived
           Israel. The passion of the first days has dissipated into internal
           feuding. Obviously the CHP is making headway against AKP, The
           Gulen-AKP squabble has shaken confidence in the movement, and
           there were some quiet comments that Devotoglu (still can't spell
           or pronounce his name) is a great man and intellectual but not up
           to power politics.  I certainly didn't have a chance to reach a
           judgment on this.  However, I got a clear sense of divisions in
           the AKP based on personalities, style and substance.  This is not
           deeper than the splits in any political party, but its there. The
           Israelis are happy as hell.  The avalanche hasn't materialized. An
           international inquiry isn't going to happen and the Turks have
           stopped demanding it, except pro forma.  The Turks have discovered
           that a propaganda coup works only when you can back it up with
           follow-on power and they just don't have that yet.

           Second, the Israelis hit them in the one place that really hurts,
           pulling trainers on UAVs.  Actually these trainers were operating
           against the PKK in recce.  The Israeli military relationship is
           not trivial for the Turks.  They are modernizing form a Cold War
           military to a modern net-centric force and they have invested
           heavily in Israeli equipment.  They urgently need this stuff to
           deal with PKK and losing these capabilities creates serious
           problems.  The issue here isn't a coup by the Army or such
           nonsense. It is that one of the things AKP must show is their
           vigor against the PKK.  This is a significant issue in Turkey and
           AKP can't put it on hold while they posture against the Israelis. 
           AKP can really lose the next election over PKK.  So, the Israeli
           move was a surgical strike against the AKP. This can, of course,
           be reversed and that is the point.  I met with the Israeli
           Ambassador to Azerbaijan and he laid out for me why this isn't the
           crisis it appeared and why countermeasures against Turkey really
           hurt.  We can expect resumption of training and assistance from
           the Israelis without announcement.

           Third, the Turks got totally hammered by the Egyptians.  They
           viewed Turkish policy as a direct attack on the Mubarak government
           and a threat to Egyptian national security.  The Egyptians were
           furious on two counts. First, the Turks didn't consult them.
           Second, the Turks didn't seem to be aware of Egypt's anti-Hamas
           policy or didn't care.  The logic of the Turkish position is that
           they move from this crisis to leadership in the Arab world.  They
           could do that, but they can't lead everyone. They need to make
           decisions on supporting Hamas and that involves alienating Egypt
           and Fatah.  They do NOT want to support Hezbollah, but they also
           don't want to break with them.  The Israelis are offering to end
           the Gaza blockade precisely because they know the Egyptians will
           do the heavy lifting for them on Hamas.  The Turkish policy on no
           enemies among their neighbors is unsupportable in the Arab world.
           Once you are involved, you will have enemies.  The core of their
           strategy is not to get deeply involved in such issues.  The logic
           of the flotilla was to get involved.  The divergent logics are
           causing a reboot in the Turkish government.  The flotilla issue is
           bleeding off while they calculate their moves.

           They are of course unhappy publicly with the U.S. rejection of
           their idea on nuclear weapons.  When pressed, they will admit they
           were in full consultation with the U.S., expected it and see this
           as a part of the negotiating process. The Turks have an odd
           naivete.  On one level they are completely sophisticated. On
           another, they seem to expect to be thanked for first efforts and
           are insulted when they aren't.  I think this has to do with
           Devotuglu who is really a theoretician more than an operator.  He
           has devoted followers who admire him deeply, but I think his
           brittleness and lack of forethought on what comes next may have
           hurt him.  

           The secular-religious shift is unbelievably rigid from the secular
           side. I had dinner with a physician whose father was a general,
           and there is no give in his position. He seemed serious about
           leaving Turkey and he believes AKP will lose the next elections. 
           I have no idea whether it will or not, but it seemed to me in
           several conversations that if AKP wins, that will create a crisis
           in the secular side much deeper than it is now.  There is a
           believe that AKP is a passing event.  If it proves not to be, that
           will be the critical point.  

           My read having gone through the region on the flotilla crisis is
           that his has not done anything to increase Arab unity, nor has it
           bought the Turks into a leadership role. More precisely, the Turks
           flinched when they saw the price that leadership would exact.  The
           Israelis have waged a superb propaganda campaign focusing on the
           attack on them and in Europe, a series of articles charging
           critics of Israel with anti-antisemitism, written by significant
           figures in Europe, has stemmed the hemorrhage.  Anti-Muslim and
           anti-Turkish feeling in  Europe is deeper than anti-Israeli
           feeling  among the public.  Intellectuals and others  of course 
           remain anti-Israeli, but they don't shape political life and the
           political leaders are not prepared to go too far with a
           pro-Turkish, pro-Arab policy.

           Obviously this could all flare up but my view was that the passion
           that was present in Turkey when I arrived was dissipated when I
           left, and that the government is starting to feel the costs of a
           break with Israel.  The Israelis will issue a scathing report on
           themselves, but only on the failure of planning.  Privately, they
           are telling the Turks that this crisis was, if not planned by
           them, their fault for failing to identify the demonstrators as
           they promised they would.  This is raising the issue in
           Turkey--very quietly--of whether this was planned (and therefore
           mishandled in the aftermath) or a mistake (in which case a failure
           in execution).  

           Certainly the sense of Turkish leadership for the Palestinians is
           no longer there.

           I will have other reports as I recover.
           -- 
           George Friedman
           Founder and CEO
           Stratfor
           700 Lavaca Street
           Suite 900
           Austin, Texas 78701
           Phone  512-744-4319
           Fax  512-744-4334

 --
 Emre Dogru

 STRATFOR
 Cell:  +90.532.465.7514
 Fixed: +1.512.279.9468
 emre.dogru@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Emre Dogru

 STRATFOR
 Cell:  +90.532.465.7514
 Fixed: +1.512.279.9468
 emre.dogru@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2010-06-17 16:03:19",1,"2012-03-01 16:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1153776_re-insight-turkey-used-uavs-during-the-iraqi-incursion.html","emre.dogru@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1176673,"RE: S3* -  MESA/CT/MIL - WikiLeaks posts huge encrypted file to Web
","   Oh, I'm not saying we shouldn't watch it.

    

   We just need to watch it with a jaundiced eye and not automatically buy
   into the hype...

    

   From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
   On Behalf Of Marc Lanthemann
   Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 4:20 PM
   To: Analyst List
   Subject: Re: S3* - MESA/CT/MIL - WikiLeaks posts huge encrypted file to
   Web

    

   I agree with your that it's most likely not exciting info. Wikileak's
   become a world recognized brand after the leak and they probably want to
   keep it that way by building up the mystique.

   However, I think it doesn't hurt to keep an eye on this and consider all
   possible scenarios.

   On 8/5/10 3:13 PM, scott stewart wrote:

   I think you may be giving the material more weight than it deserves.  The
   stuff released to date is pretty tame and lame. I can't imagine the last
   15,000 documents being qualitatively much different  if they came from the
   same source.

   Therefore, I think this is more of a publicity stunt than anything.   I
   wonder how much money Assange has raised through this \"ordeal\" of being
   persecuted by the USG?

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

    

   From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
   On Behalf Of Marc Lanthemann
   Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 4:06 PM
   To: Analyst List
   Subject: Re: S3* - MESA/CT/MIL - WikiLeaks posts huge encrypted file to
   Web

    

   I came up with some more thoughts/points while discussing this with Sean:

     o The general guess is that Insurance contains the remaining 15k Afghan
       docs, but it could either be something more damaging or total bluff.
     o In any case the US govt wouldn't want to risk public dissemination.
       Which means they can't really arrest him, kill him or send him to a
       relaxation spa in Cuba or Poland.
     o Therefore Assange's life/liberty is somewhat important for US national
       security.
     o Pushing this reasoning forward, killing Assange would be detrimental
       for the US.
     o I don't know who would benefit from further leaks and political
       shitstorms in the US, but that person/government may have it in them
       to cap Assange.
     o The US needs to make sure nobody gets to him.
     o All in all, not a particularly brilliant self-preservation move from
       Assange.

   On 8/5/10 2:25 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

   FYI, talked to some of my CS/hacker-savvy friends. The file is encrypted
   using a 256 bit AES encryption, which is what the US government uses for
   classified documentation. There are no known weaknesses to this encryption
   and it would take longer than the lifetime of the sun to brute-force the
   code using all the supercomputers currently in existence. You'd need a
   super secret quantum computer or the biggest breakthrough in
   cryptoanalysis ever.

   Bottom line we'll only get access to the files when Wikileaks feels like
   releasing the password. This has been making lots of waves in the
   hacker/nerd community, and I spent some time browsing hacker forums for
   ideas. Serious people (as serious as webforum hackers can be) are talking
   about a sort of dead man trigger, password must be entered by Assange
   every X hours/days or the password is released.

   In any case, NSA is going to get a headache over this. It might even be a
   bluff and turn out to be Assange's randomly encrypted copy of Bambi.

   On 8/5/10 1:31 PM, Michael Wilson wrote:

   no idea what is really on

   WikiLeaks posts huge encrypted file to Web
   The Associated Press
   Thursday, August 5, 2010; 1:30 PM

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR2010080504526.html

   LONDON -- Online whistle-blower WikiLeaks has posted a huge encrypted file
   named \"Insurance\" to its website, sparking speculation that those behind
   the organization may be prepared to release more classified information if
   authorities interfere with them.

   Bloggers have noted that it's 20 times larger than the batch of 77,000
   secret U.S. military documents about Afghanistan that WikiLeaks dumped
   onto the Web last month. Contributors to tech sites such as CNet have
   speculated that the file could be a way of threatening to disclose more
   information if WikiLeaks' staffers were detained or if the site was
   attacked, although the organization itself has kept mum.

   \"As a matter of policy, we do not discuss security procedures,\" WikiLeaks
   said Thursday in an e-mail response to questions about the 1.4 gigabyte
   file.

   Editor-in-chief Julian Assange was a bit more expansive - if equally
   cryptic - in his response to the same line of questioning in a television
   interview with independent U.S. news network Democracy Now!

   \"I think it's better that we don't comment on that,\" Assange said,
   according to the network's transcript of the interview. \"But, you know,
   one could imagine in a similar situation that it might be worth ensuring
   that important parts of history do not disappear.\"

   Assange, a former computer hacker, has expressed concern over his safety
   in the past, complaining of surveillance and telling interviewers that
   he's been warned away from visiting the United States.

   Since the publication of the Afghanistan files, at least one activist
   associated with the site has been questioned by U.S. authorities.
   Programmer Jacob Appelbaum, who filled in for Assange at a conference last
   month, was reportedly detained and questioned about the site by officials
   after arriving in the U.S. on a flight from the Netherlands.
   ad_icon

   U.S. officials have had harsh words for Assange, with Adm. Michael Mullen,
   chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying he and his colleagues had
   disclosed potentially life-threatening information and might already have
   blood on their hands.

   U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has refused to rule out the
   possibility that Assange could be a target into the military's
   investigation into the leak.

   ---

 --

 Michael Wilson

 Watch Officer, STRAFOR

 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112

 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com

  

  

 --

 Michael Wilson

 Watch Officer, STRAFOR

 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112

 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com

  

  

 --

 Marc Lanthemann

 Research Intern

 Mobile: +1 609-865-5782

 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

 www.stratfor.com

 --

 Marc Lanthemann

 Research Intern

 Mobile: +1 609-865-5782

 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

 www.stratfor.com

 --

 Marc Lanthemann

 Research Intern

 Mobile: +1 609-865-5782

 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

 www.stratfor.com
","2010-08-05 22:28:10",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1176673_re-s3-mesa-ct-mil-wikileaks-posts-huge-encrypted-file-to-web.html","scott.stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1177721,"Re: USE ME: B3 - ECON/GREECE - Governmental situation is evolving
","   Lots of talk that a cabinet reshuffle is coming... might mean that Papa-C
   is out (the finance minister). If Papa-D stays, however, then it is a
   really lame concession.

   On 6/15/11 10:35 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:

     needs to include the line at the bottom about potential elections

     On 6/15/11 10:26 AM, Benjamin Preisler wrote:

       combine all the way to the bottom with the parts from STRATFOR sources

       PM and ND leader discuss all-party government, sources claim
           15 Jun 2011 (google says about 26 mins ago)
       http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43171
       Prime Minister George Papandreou held talks with main opposition New
       Democracy leader Antonis Samaras on the telephone on Wednesday, after
       a round of telephone calls with the leaders of the other political
       parties in Parliament. Their conversation lasted roughly 20 minutes.
        
       While an earlier official announcement by ND had refused to disclose
       the content of their talks before Papandreou had expressed his
       position, unnamed sources within the party [the ND] said that the
       prime minister had described the situation as extremely difficult and
       that he was prepared to consider either an all-party government or a
       broader alliance government.
        
       The same sources said that Samaras did not reject the proposal but
       made it clear that this could not work with Papandreou as prime
       minister. To this, always according to ND sources, Papandreou
       apparently replied that he was not concerned about whether he was
       prime minister.
        
       Other sources within the party announced that there would be a second
       telephone communication between the two men later on Wednesday
       afternoon.
        
       Samaras has apparently made it a condition that there is a substantial
       renegotiation of the terms of the Memorandum for the loans to Greece,
       in order to agree to an all-party government.
        
       The ND leader, who has been in continuous contact with his closest
       aides since the morning, is expected to head to his party's
       headquarters in a short while. (ANA)

       PM talks with Samaras on the phone
           15 Jun 2011 (google says about 1 hour ago)
       http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43169

       Prime Minister George Papandreou held talks with main opposition New
       Democracy leader Antonis Samaras on the telephone on Wednesday, after
       a round of telephone calls with the leaders of the other political
       parties in Parliament.
        
       Their conversation lasted roughly 20 minutes and ND refused to reveal
       any information concerning their talks before the prime minister
       addresses the public.
        
       Samaras, who has been in continuous contact with his closest aides
       since the morning, was expected to head to his party's headquarters
       after the conversation with Papandreou. (ANA)

       Tsipras calls for immediate elections in phone call with PM
           15 Jun 2011 (google says about 2 hours ago)
       http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43163

       Coalition of the Radical Left (Syriza parliamentary alliance)
       parliamentary group leader Alexis Tsipras on Wednesday called for
       immediate general elections as the only way out for the country,
       during a telephone discussion with Prime Minister George Papandreou,
       according to party sources.
        
       Papandreou called Tsipras after an extraordinary meeting with
       President of the Republic Karolos Papoulias earlier in the day, in the
       context of a round of phone calls to all political party leaders.
        
       Sources said Papandreou reiterated his government's and his own
       personal determination that the Medium-Term Fiscal Strategy Framework
       programme will be passed by parliament, to which Tsipras replied that
       Syriza remained firm in its stance that the Memorandum and the
       Medium-Term programme are catastrophic for the country, and that the
       only way out, and to the benefit of stability in Greece, is immediate
       recourse to general elections.
        
       The same sources said that neither a new meeting of the Council of
       Political Party Leaders nor a one-on-one meeting with Papandreou were
       put forward during the phone discussion.
        
       Tsipras will make statements immediately after the prime minister's
       address to the nation later on Wednesday. (ANA)

       PM meets with President, rumours abound
           by (AthensNewsWeb)             15 Jun 2011 (google says about 3
       hours ago)
       http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43133
       Prime Minister George Papandreou met with the President of the
       Republic Karolos Papoulias, on Wednesday noon, stating that this is a
       \"historic moment\", while Greek journalists cancelled their 24-hour
       nationwide strike, as rumours abound about the possibility of a
       coalition government or snap elections.
        
       According to government sources, the prime minister will continue on
       Wednesday his round of telephone contacts with the political party
       leaders after his extraordinary meeting with Karolos Papoulias, adding
       that Papandreou had spoken only with Communist Party of Greece (KKE)
       leader Aleka Papariga and Democratic Left leader Fotis Kouvelis before
       the meeting.
        
       This clarification comes as earlier on Wednesday, a statement by
       Papandreou before the meeting with Papoulias that he was in contact
       with the party leaders to seek consensus sparked denials of such
       telephone contacts by ND and Syriza.

        
       Papandreou, the sources continued, would make an address to the people
       later on Wednesday. The government sources left open all prospects,
       but for the time being ruled out snap elections.
        
       Earlier, Pasok MP Ntinos Vrettos asked for the government to resign so
       that a new one would be formed of publicly acclaimed experts and
       politicians.
        
       On Tuesday, Florina MP Giorgos Lianis tendered his resignation as a
       member of Pasok's central committee. Lianis is keeping his parliament
       seat and will continue to serve as an independent, leaving the ruling
       Pasok party with 155 MPs.
        
       In his resignation letter addressed to the Speaker of the Parliament
       and to Prime Minister George Papandreou, Lianis stressed that he does
       not believe anymore in the government's economic policy and that \"we
       [the government] have failed and we are forced to hide the truth from
       the people\".
        
       Lianis, who started his career as a journalist, was first elected to
       parliament on Pasok's ticket in 1989 and he has served as deputy
       culture minister from 1993 to 1996.
        
       Earlier on Tuesday, Pasok MP for Kozani Alekos Athanasiadis in a radio
       interview said that he would vote against the medium-term programme.
        
       \"I will not vote for the medium-term programme and I assume my
       responsibilities,\" Athanasiadis said.
        
       The government on Thursday tabled in parliament a medium-term fiscal
       strategy framework for the economy envisaging a new round of severe
       austerity measures designed to bring in overall revenues of 28.259
       billion euros by 2015, as well as a 50 billion euros privatisation
       programme. The programme is scheduled to be put to vote in the
       300-member chamber on June 28.

       ND denies reports of Samaras meeting with PM aide
           15 Jun 2011 (google says about 5 hours ago)
       http://www.athensnews.gr/portal/8/43150
       Main opposition New Democracy categorically denied on Wednesday
       rumours appearing on several blogs and websites of a meeting on
       Tuesday between ND leader Antonis Samaras and a representative of
       Prime Minister George Papandreou.
        
       In a statement, ND press officer Yiannis Michelakis called the rumours
       \"absurd\" and unworthy of denial.
        
       ND further denied any telephone contact whatsoever between Samaras and
       Papandreou. (ANA)

       On 06/15/2011 03:53 PM, Benjamin Preisler wrote:

         STRATFOR sources in Greece:

         Papandreou is in contact with other political leaders for some kind
         of broader consensus, maybe even some form of coalition government. 
         Tthe elections scenario is also at the forefront if no consensus is
         reached.
         A PASOK MP Mr Dinos Vrettos, asked today for a total reshuffling of
         the government, putting well known personalities from a broader
         spectrum in the new government.

         Papandreou in talks with Samaras about a coalition governement. They
         are looking at the possibility of a  \"national salvation\" government
         without Papandreou as  a prime minister. A prerogative of such a
         governement will probably be a renegotiation of the austerity
         measures. There being no time for bargaining now, first they would
         pass the measures through parliament and then try to renegotiate
         some of the measures (taxes mostly).

         --
         Marko Papic

         STRATFOR Analyst
         C: + 1-512-905-3091
         marko.papic@stratfor.com

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com


 --
 Marko Papic
 Senior Analyst
 STRATFOR
 + 1-512-744-4094 (O)
 + 1-512-905-3091 (C)
 221 W. 6th St, Ste. 400
 Austin, TX 78701 - USA
 www.stratfor.com
 @marko_papic
","2011-06-15 18:11:44",1,"2011-03-05 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1177721_re-use-me-b3-econ-greece-governmental-situation-is-evolving-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","watchofficer@stratfor.com",""
1181111,"INSIGHT - GREECE/ECON - Risks Abound for Austerity Vote
","   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE: EL501
   ATTRIBUTION: Greek media sources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Confed partner
   SOURCE  Reliability : A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   SPECIAL HANDLING: Marko

   There is a vote for the mid-term plan on the 29th and another vote on the
   application law (of the plan) on the 30th of June.
   Chances are it will pass. There are 2 MPs that are still against it (but
   appear to be less \"adamant\" about it) and some unknown quantities (another
   2-3 I would say) that are \"suspects\".
   But nobody is really certain yet! 
   There is a 2day general strike for the 28th and 29th and there will be
   demosntrations in front of the parliament. This could play a-negative-
   part, if there are too many people, and/or some violence etc.
   Best

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2011-06-27 16:00:17",1,"2011-03-05 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1181111_insight-greece-econ-risks-abound-for-austerity-vote-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","watchofficer@stratfor.com",""
1183539,"Re: INSIGHT - AUSTRALIA - Election - CN65
","   The election is becoming difficult to call, though the sudden and
   extremely rapid rise of the opposition in the past few months doesn't bode
   well for Labor, though its support, as he mentions, was thought to still
   be greater even as little as a month ago. Obviously we aren't going to try
   to call the election. Here is our take on it from Neptune report:

   In the run-up to federal elections Aug 21, Australia's ruling Labor Party
   and Prime Minister Julia Gillard remain ahead of the opposition
   Liberal-National Coalition and its leader Tony Abbott, but the gap has
   narrowed dramatically in the past month. The Labor Party is still reeling
   after ditching its previous leader, Kevin Rudd, watering down its proposal
   to impose a tax on the windfall profits of mining companies and struggling
   to come up with a credible bid to create a regional processing center for
   asylum seekers. The election is not likely to affect the major
   geopolitically relevant trends: Australia will remain financially in a
   better position than most developed economies, it will maintain its
   support for the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force in
   Afghanistan, and it will continue to benefit economically from China's
   growth while limiting Chinese influence in Australia. However, the
   election will impact the proposed mining super-tax, which could affect the
   country's ability to acquire, or leverage, foreign investment in its
   resources development. Critics say the law, which would not take effect
   until 2012, would drive away foreign investment, while proponents say it
   would help fix the budget deficit and rebalance the economy away from
   foreign investment-driven growth. Abbott has proposed scrapping the
   super-tax altogether while Gillard is sticking to her moderated version.

   Antonia Colibasanu wrote:

     SOURCE: CN65
     ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
     natural resources
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator.  Source is 
     well-connected politically, militarily and economically.  He has become
     a
     private businessman helping foreign companies with M&As
     PUBLICATION: Yes but with no attribution
     SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
     DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Jen
     Please find herewith some political background analysis from John Black,
     former Labor Party senator for Queensland.
     There are very interesting things happening here, most notably a cabinet
     leak which clearly came from the Rudd camp in the ALP.  Please see this
     article by Lenore Taylor (who is hard left, and therefore not from my
     side).
     http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/gillards-credibility-takes-a-hit-and-theres-not-a-thing-she-can-do-20100728-10w35.html?autostart=1
     You should also listen to the vodcast by Tim Lester on the link.
     There is also a Newspoll out showing that Abbott and Gillard are level
     pegging on approval ratings for the first time.  If correct, this
     presages a swing to the Opposition in about a week or so.  Also,
     Sportsbet announced it had taken $25,000 of bets on the Coalition since
     the weekend, but not a single dollar on Labor!  
     http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-election/gillard-gets-the-wobbles-with-bookies-20100729-10x9f.html
     I really can't pick this campaign at all.  I thought Labor would win,
     but now I'm not sure.
","2010-07-29 15:00:45",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1183539_re-insight-australia-election-cn65-.html","matt.gertken@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1184240,"Re: S3* -  MESA/CT/MIL - WikiLeaks posts huge encrypted file to Web
","   This is a pretty cool tool to come out of the Wikileaks data
   http://ekstrabladet.dk/indsigt/warlogs-1/

   Nate Hughes wrote:

     True, but gotta watch for the ideologies. Not above breaking the law or
     anything like that, but pretty fanatical in their beliefs. This
     wikileaks guy talks a lot about 'justice' and shit like that...

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"scott stewart\" <scott.stewart@stratfor.com>
     Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:10:08 -0500 (CDT)
     To: 'Analyst List'<analysts@stratfor.com>
     ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Subject: RE: S3* - MESA/CT/MIL - WikiLeaks posts huge encrypted file to
     Web

     They try to portray themselves as all idealistic, but by and large, the
     hacker community is pretty mercenary. I can see him selling copies to
     intelligence agencies to make some quick scratch and build his server
     farm....  

      

     The Chinese and Russians don't leak intelligence they vacuum it up.

      

      

      

      

     From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
     [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com] On Behalf Of Marc Lanthemann
     Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 5:01 PM
     To: Analyst List
     Subject: Re: S3* - MESA/CT/MIL - WikiLeaks posts huge encrypted file to
     Web

      

     I don't think that the copies can be purchased. It's the complete
     opposite of wikileaks' mission. They are as a public dissemination
     organization, not a private intelligence agency. Selling information to
     private parties is just unthinkable to those guys, they seek the glory
     of being whistle blowers, not monetary profit. They think of themselves
     as the freedom of press' Robin Hoods, taking info from the rich and
     powerful to give to the poor and ignorant masses.

     If this is, as you said, a media operation, they wouldn't risk the
     Chinese or the Russians leaking that info and taking away their credit.
     Assuming it's similar to the previous leaks, the biggest damage those
     documents can do is by being leaked. It's not like the PRA is going to
     learn anything about out tactics they didn't know already. So China
     would only pay for this document for its potentially destabilizing
     value. This implies some sort of dissemination. If someone is going to
     leak that document it's wikileaks, ergo they won't give/sell it to
     anyone else.

     On 8/5/10 3:43 PM, scott stewart wrote:

     The sources and methods concern is already out the window. This material
     is already out there and I'm certain that anybody who wanted to purchase
     it on the side from Assange could do so.  I'm sure the Chinese and
     Russians already have complete copies, probably even the ISI has bought
     a copy.

      

     Now the issue is really more about damage control, and spinning the
     perception of events in the USGs favor.  

      

      

      

     From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
     [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com] On Behalf Of Sean Noonan
     Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 4:36 PM
     To: Analyst List
     Subject: Re: S3* - MESA/CT/MIL - WikiLeaks posts huge encrypted file to
     Web

      

     I'm not sure what you're saying here--- if you mean that Assange wants
     this to appear like a Keanue Reeves movie you are right on.  In terms of
     the US concerns, i'm pretty confident in my analysis.  There's no crazy
     conspiracy here, but the US is going to do what it can to limit and
     protect that information.  The key is protecting sources and methods. 
     While there was nothing crazy in the last file dump, it still outed
     both. I'm not saying the US is going to do any major covert operation or
     whatever to get Assange nor that they are going to be intimidated by
     this 'insurance' file.  They're going to quickly rethink how they are
     going to get him, but they're not going to be scared by this.  They
     might be more motivated to negotiate in some way. 

     Marko Papic wrote:

     I will say one thing... if you submitted this as a script to Hollywood,
     they'd say it is too ludicrous.

     Unless it was the 1990s... in which case they would cast Keanu Reeves
     as  Assange

     Sean Noonan wrote:

     I think it is actually the smartest move he could make.  The US wants
     him....pretty badly.  So, he can assume he will be pursued for arrest,
     maybe even rendition (I doubt that, and definitely doubt any
     assassination BS) wherever he goes.  Putting this file up there makes
     the US think twice about arresting him.  And Marc, you are right that
     now the US can be concerned about his well-being, especially if they
     have been given clues abou what's in the file and really don't want it
     out.  Looking at the information in the last leak, none of it was of any
     serious value (except in endangering US operatives).  Let's assume this
     is more valuable, but it's still hard to believe it is that valuable. 
     Wikileaks wants the public to think these are crazy revelations coming
     out.  For example, everything in those files people could've learned
     from reading STRATFOR, but now that it has the hype of being
     'classified' and 'leaked' more people are paying attention. 

     Even if the information is valuable enough to the US to really try to
     protect, I highly doubt whatever information this might have will be so
     damaging to the US that any foreign group or country would find it
     valuable enough to assassinate Assange.  Would any foreign intelligence
     agency or militant group dealing with the US want it leaked?  Yes,
     definitely, but it is not of such value to them to accept the risk to
     force the information out there.  At best a foreign country would offer
     him some sort of protected asylum in return for access (but would he
     accept that?  not on his ideology).

     So now the US has to figure out how to get its hand on this file, any
     other information Assange might have while having enough information for
     a prosecution and preventing the 'insurance' from being 'collected.' 
     This gives him a delay in which he can move around, maybe better protect
     himself and at worst work out a deal with the US. If the US really was
     so concerned about, he would already be in custody.  It would have to be
     truly disastrous information, and I highly doubt it is. 

     He's making a smart media ploy, and creating enough of a distraction
     that it's probably better for his personal security.  The larger his
     profile, the harder it is for US security services to arrest,
     interrogate and neutralize (I don't mean kill) him. 

     Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     I came up with some more thoughts/points while discussing this with
     Sean:

       o The general guess is that Insurance contains the remaining 15k
         Afghan docs, but it could either be something more damaging or total
         bluff.
       o In any case the US govt wouldn't want to risk public dissemination.
         Which means they can't really arrest him, kill him or send him to a
         relaxation spa in Cuba or Poland.
       o Therefore Assange's life/liberty is somewhat important for US
         national security.
       o Pushing this reasoning forward, killing Assange would be detrimental
         for the US.
       o I don't know who would benefit from further leaks and political
         shitstorms in the US, but that person/government may have it in them
         to cap Assange.
       o The US needs to make sure nobody gets to him.
       o All in all, not a particularly brilliant self-preservation move from
         Assange.

     On 8/5/10 2:25 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     FYI, talked to some of my CS/hacker-savvy friends. The file is encrypted
     using a 256 bit AES encryption, which is what the US government uses for
     classified documentation. There are no known weaknesses to this
     encryption and it would take longer than the lifetime of the sun to
     brute-force the code using all the supercomputers currently in
     existence. You'd need a super secret quantum computer or the biggest
     breakthrough in cryptoanalysis ever.

     Bottom line we'll only get access to the files when Wikileaks feels like
     releasing the password. This has been making lots of waves in the
     hacker/nerd community, and I spent some time browsing hacker forums for
     ideas. Serious people (as serious as webforum hackers can be) are
     talking about a sort of dead man trigger, password must be entered by
     Assange every X hours/days or the password is released.

     In any case, NSA is going to get a headache over this. It might even be
     a bluff and turn out to be Assange's randomly encrypted copy of Bambi.

     On 8/5/10 1:31 PM, Michael Wilson wrote:

     no idea what is really on

     WikiLeaks posts huge encrypted file to Web
     The Associated Press
     Thursday, August 5, 2010; 1:30 PM

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/05/AR2010080504526.html

     LONDON -- Online whistle-blower WikiLeaks has posted a huge encrypted
     file named \"Insurance\" to its website, sparking speculation that those
     behind the organization may be prepared to release more classified
     information if authorities interfere with them.

     Bloggers have noted that it's 20 times larger than the batch of 77,000
     secret U.S. military documents about Afghanistan that WikiLeaks dumped
     onto the Web last month. Contributors to tech sites such as CNet have
     speculated that the file could be a way of threatening to disclose more
     information if WikiLeaks' staffers were detained or if the site was
     attacked, although the organization itself has kept mum.

     \"As a matter of policy, we do not discuss security procedures,\"
     WikiLeaks said Thursday in an e-mail response to questions about the 1.4
     gigabyte file.

     Editor-in-chief Julian Assange was a bit more expansive - if equally
     cryptic - in his response to the same line of questioning in a
     television interview with independent U.S. news network Democracy Now!

     \"I think it's better that we don't comment on that,\" Assange said,
     according to the network's transcript of the interview. \"But, you know,
     one could imagine in a similar situation that it might be worth ensuring
     that important parts of history do not disappear.\"

     Assange, a former computer hacker, has expressed concern over his safety
     in the past, complaining of surveillance and telling interviewers that
     he's been warned away from visiting the United States.

     Since the publication of the Afghanistan files, at least one activist
     associated with the site has been questioned by U.S. authorities.
     Programmer Jacob Appelbaum, who filled in for Assange at a conference
     last month, was reportedly detained and questioned about the site by
     officials after arriving in the U.S. on a flight from the Netherlands.
     ad_icon

     U.S. officials have had harsh words for Assange, with Adm. Michael
     Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying he and his
     colleagues had disclosed potentially life-threatening information and
     might already have blood on their hands.

     U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has refused to rule out the
     possibility that Assange could be a target into the military's
     investigation into the leak.

     ---

 --

 Michael Wilson

 Watch Officer, STRAFOR

 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112

 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com

  

  

 --

 Michael Wilson

 Watch Officer, STRAFOR

 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112

 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com

  

  

 --

 Marc Lanthemann

 Research Intern

 Mobile: +1 609-865-5782

 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

 www.stratfor.com

 --

 Marc Lanthemann

 Research Intern

 Mobile: +1 609-865-5782

 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

 www.stratfor.com

      

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

      

     --

     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

     Marko Papic

     Geopol Analyst - Eurasia

     STRATFOR

     700 Lavaca Street - 900

     Austin, Texas

     78701 USA

     P: + 1-512-744-4094

     marko.papic@stratfor.com

      

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

 --

 Marc Lanthemann

 Research Intern

 Mobile: +1 609-865-5782

 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

 www.stratfor.com
","2010-08-06 15:47:53",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1184240_re-s3-mesa-ct-mil-wikileaks-posts-huge-encrypted-file-to-web.html","benjamin.preisler@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com,nathan.hughes@stratfor.com",""
1192707,"Re: MORE Re: INSIGHT - AUSTRALIA - Independents split - CN65
","   I thought the original Singtel Optus-Huawei bid was killed in 2009.=C2=A0
   ASIO (Aussie intelligence) was investigating Huawei at the time.=C2=A0 Is
   there a new bid?=C2=A0 (forgive me if I missed the discussion).=C2=A0

   Also, this has been Huawei's new strategy since a bunch of their bids got
   killed in the 2000s.=C2=A0 They partner with major local telecoms
   companies--like they're trying to do with Motorola in the US now.=C2=A0
   Lena Bell wrote:

     Jennifer Richmond wrote:

       The issue is that China's Huawei is bidding to do part of the NBN, and
       the Labour government is \"turning a blind eye\" to it, according to
       source.=C2=A0 Source says, \"They just refuse to believe what they've
       been told by the guys who know. The whole scheme is flawed. They're
       going to spend A$43 billion on this for a population of 22 million.
       That means almost A$2,000 per person. This just can't be made to work
       at anything like affordable costs to the consumer. That might be
       driving them into the arms of Huawei.\"

       On 9/7/2010 11:19 AM, Matt Gertken wrote:

         Chris and I were just discussing this. the plan is a national funded
         and controlled fiber optic broadband network. The security issue has
         not received nearly as much debate or discussion as the political
         debates about cost and competitiveness, even though it was
         frequently referred to during the China-Google debates. The
         criticism by some activists has been that Oz will have complete
         control over information. The complaint by national security types
         has been that a foreign sponsored hacker (such as China) would
         access a gold mine by breaking into this network, and that it should
         be coupled with a more comprehensive cyber-security plan.

         we need more info about it but here is the Oz House of Reps' latest
         report on cyber crime which was oft-cited in questions relating to
         this: =
         http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/coms/cybercrime/report.htm

         essentially the security risk argument is that a centrally
         administered broadband network would be more vulnerable to foreign
         attack.

         Of course will defer to Jen's source on this and would very much
         like to hear more details/specifics (or links to places to find
         them) about the security risks.

         Peter Zeihan wrote:

           how is the NBN a security risk?

           On 9/7/2010 9:44 AM, Antonia Colibasanu wrote:

             = National Broadband Network

 --=20
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director, Stratfor
 US Mobile: (512) 422-9335
 China Mobile: (86) 15801890731
 Email: richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com



  

     Hi (new OZ ADP) very interesting comment about security issues...
     definite split in the community about the costs, but a lot of
     Australians see it as a nation building imperative. The cost is high,
     but it's being compared to the railroads infrastructure (how that
     radically changed things), and something that is necessary.

     Matt, don't think Huawei is bidding (?) do you mean investing? (no press
     about this back home)
     Even if they did, the government would be very unlikely to ban
     investment... create too many waves.

     Also, in July Huawei joined forces with RMIT (a uni in Melbourne) to
     create a Next Generation Tech Training Centre (will train 1000 students
     over the next 3 years). Jobs out of this.
     I think it just launched its first Android phone in Oz this week too.

     Interestingly, Chinese-owned operator Asia Netcom used to provide
     services for OZ embassies...

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2010-09-08 20:15:00",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1192707_re-more-re-insight-australia-independents-split-cn65-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1209471,"Fwd: Re: Zaur
","   -------- Original Message --------

   Subject: Re: Zaur                                       
      Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 23:21:48 -0600                
      From: Lauren Goodrich <lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com> 
        To: Zaur Hasanov <hasanovz@yahoo.com>              
        CC: Lauren Goodrich <goodrich@stratfor.com>        

   Hello Zaur!
   Here are my answers. I hope they reach you in time. Let me know if you
   have any follow-up questions.
   Lauren

   We are also thinking on wikileaks in Azerbaijan. What's your take on it, I
   mean of Stratfor?

    

   This latest round of WikiLeaks of more than 250,000 U.S. State Department
   diplomatic cables has revealed very little that was not previously known.
   There has not been a single Top Secret report like the Pentagon Papers of
   1971. Each of the WikiLeaks releases have instead been fairly low-level
   reports of even lower levels of classification-despite the cables being
   classified.

    

   The leaks will not affect much in ways of operation, but are instead
   diplomatically embarrassing. The cables reveal what is widely known in the
   world - that countries' representatives act one way and say another. The
   cables cut through much of the diplomatic and theatrical dialogues seen in
   public and instead lay out much of the reality between countries. But such
   frank discussions are meant to be held in confidence since there are
   larger games and balances to be held outside of a bilateral discussion.
   This is how diplomacy and the real back-channel negotiations work.

    

   Do you see in a purposeful leak by US officials or it is happened really?

    

   The U.S. at this time can not afford to have such a scandal as its
   relationships around the world are already strained, so STRATFOR believes
   that the leaks are genuine instead of purposefully orchestrated.

    

   Also what do you think Azerbaijan  can expect from the leak? There are
   tons of stories not published yet. The leak already irritates officials
   here. If wikileak will continue to publish stories about high ranking
   officials it can damage the relations between US and Azerbaijan.  

    

   The WikiLeaks on Azerbaijan were interesting in that there were two sets
   of leaks that will effect Azerbaijan's public perception.

    

   The first set of important leaks is the US officials in Baku comparing
   President Ilham Aliyev to the \"Godfather\", saying that \"the Aliyev
   administration has developed an 'organised crime' image in some quarters,
   leading some analysts to see Ilham Aliyev at times in a mafia-like role.\"
   This is a definite blast against the leadership in Azerbaijan at a time
   when the U.S. State department was already struggling with getting an
   Ambassador sent to Baku. So this leak could be another sign to Baku of the
   U.S.'s lack of taking Azerbaijan seriously. Interestingly, this
   terminology of comparing leaders to the mafia has been seen in may of the
   cables concerning former Soviet states, giving the impression that the
   State Department perhaps does not understand how governments in the region
   operate.

    

   The other set of leaks that STRATFOR finds interesting is those where
   President Aliyev discusses Baku's balance of powers in the region. How
   Azerbaijan is not against normalizing relations with Armenia pending a
   resolution on Nagorn-Karabakh, but how Russia isn't playing the a negative
   role in the process. Also, how Baku isn't tied to Ankara. Such leaks are a
   sign that Azerbaijan isn't solely dependent on the U.S. or Turkey and does
   have a constructive relationship with Russia. Such leaks reinforce to the
   U.S. that it can not dictate Azerbaijan's future, since Baku does have
   options of other major players in the region to leverage into a better
   relationship with Washington.

    

    

   On 12/3/10 3:38 AM, Zaur Hasanov wrote:

     Hey Lauren
      
     Hope you are fine.
      
     We are also thinking on wikileaks in Azerbaijan. What's your take on it,
     I mean of Stratfor?
      
     Do you see in a purposeful leak by US officials or it is happened
     really?
      
     Also what do you think Azerbaijan  can expect from the leak? There are
     tons of stories not published yet. The leak already irritates officials
     here. If wikileak will continue to publish stories about high ranking
     officials it can damage the relations between US and Azerbaijan.  
      
     Have a good day, Zaur      
      
      

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-06 06:37:06",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1209471_fwd-re-zaur-.html","lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com","","confed@stratfor.com",""
1216587,"Re: [alpha] sourcing insight
","   I can't speak to your particular circumstances, but that is the general
   rule.

   On 7/29/11 2:49 PM, Kamran Bokhari wrote:

     I have always been secure even though I am always overseas.

     On 7/29/11 2:59 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

       Ok, good question.

       The secure list is not supposed to have anyone overseas on it.  (And
       as a side note, if you are traveling overseas you need to get yourself
       off this list while out of the country.)  We have many WOs overseas
       and so when we send something to secure it is just one more way we are
       trying to protect sourcing by not having it sent over international
       wires (yes, of course, there are many ways that foreigners can access
       any insight sent from anywhere at anytime, but it is somewhat more
       secure when we email only within CONUS).  So either a source or
       insight that is highly sensitive needs to go to the secure list only,
       and that means that we send it in ourselves because the overseas WOs
       won't be able to pick it up.

       Alpha goes to analysts/writers (and the few others selected on this
       list) and not ADPs or Interns, including to analysts/writers overseas.

       On 7/29/11 1:50 PM, Lauren Goodrich wrote:

         your last line in the P.S.... said to send things directly to
         secure... I wanted to know if that meant only to secure or to alpha
         too.
         I think there is still some confusion over which list is which.
         On 7/29/11 1:47 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

           I don't understand your question.  This applies to both lists. 
           All sources need IDs (as mentioned in my PS - does that answer
           your question?).

           As to the question of sending from BBs, I definitely understand
           that issue.  When you return to your computer, please reply to the
           insight sent out with the full coding.  We need this info to
           really track insight and any changes over time.

           On 7/29/11 1:45 PM, Lauren Goodrich wrote:

             secure or alpha?

             On 7/29/11 1:41 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

 We've gotten lazy on insight source IDs again.  Not only do you need to
 put the source code in the subject line, but all of these categories
 need to be filled out for every single insight sent to the list.

 SOURCE: code
 ATTRIBUTION: this is what we should say if we use this info in a
 publication, e.g. STRATFOR source/source in the medical industry/source
 on the ground, etc
 SOURCE DESCRIPTION: this is where we put the more concrete details of
 the source for our internal consumption so we can better understand the
 source's background and ability to make the assessments in the insight
 PUBLICATION: Yes or no.  If you put yes it doesn't mean that we will
 publish it, but only that we can publish it.
 SOURCE RELIABILITY: A-F, A being the best and F being the worst.  this
 grades the turnaround time of this source in responding to requests
 ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1-10, 1 being the best and 10 being the worst (we may
 change the range here in the future).  this changes a lot based on the
 info provided.  1 is \"you can take this to the bank\" and 10 would be an
 example of maybe - \"this is a totally ridiculous rumor but something
 that is spreading on the ground\"
 SPECIAL HANDLING: often this is \"none\" but it may be something like, \"if
 you use this we need to be sure not to mention the part about XXX in the
 publication\" or any other special notes
 SOURCE HANDLER: the person who can take follow-up questions and
 communicate with the source

 If you have any questions, concerns or suggestions, let me know.  I'll
 be back in the office next Tues so if you want to discuss this process
 in person we can do so soon.  In the meantime, remember that every piece
 of insight needs this ENTIRE ID unless it is just something that you
 picked up off the ground from a source that you will likely not hear
 from again.  Even then, you should fill out the entire ID and in the
 SOURCE field simply say - n/a with a description on why we are not
 coding them.

 Jen
 PS: Also remember that is something is highly sensitive to send directly
 - not thru a WO - to the \"secure\" list.  Secure list insights still need
 the above ID tags.


             --
             Lauren Goodrich
             Senior Eurasia Analyst
             STRATFOR
             T: 512.744.4311
             F: 512.744.4334
             lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
             www.stratfor.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com


         --
         Lauren Goodrich
         Senior Eurasia Analyst
         STRATFOR
         T: 512.744.4311
         F: 512.744.4334
         lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
         www.stratfor.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com


 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-07-29 21:59:09",1,"2012-03-01 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1216587_re-alpha-sourcing-insight-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","","bokhari@stratfor.com",""
1218415,"INSIGHT - CHINA/AUSTRALIA - Gillard hacking - CN65
","   SOURCE:  CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes NO ATTRIBUTION
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 3
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen
   This government has been very cavalier about security issues in China
   including bringing their laptops to China and even leaving them in their
   hotels despite their security briefings.  Source believes that these
   computers have been hacked before. 

   These computers are on the Parliamentary network, with public email
   addresses, namely for constituents including important companies (e.g.
   Rio, BHP, etc - quasi commercial/quasi national interest).  There are
   separate ministerial computers.  At least 10 officials have been hacked on
   the Parliamentary network.  It is unclear if the ministerial computers
   have been compromised, but it is likely.  Regardless the amount of
   commercial information they could have obtained is enormous.

   The government is building the national broadband network.  It is costing
   36 billion AUD.  Huawei is still being considered for the bid. 
   Australia's security guys are going nuts.  The potential for their entire
   security apparatus to be compromised is great. 

   The increase in hacking is a test.  They think the west is weak.  They
   don't think the US will respond and they know the Australians won't
   respond. 

   The Australian that has gone missing, Yang Hengjun the spy novelist living
   in Sydney (report in OS earlier today and yesterday) didn't just retire
   from the MFA as the OS reports are saying. 

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-03-30 04:50:59",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1218415_insight-china-australia-gillard-hacking-cn65-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","","secure@stratfor.com",""
1219122,"Re: CHINA/AUSTRALIA - Hanlong lifts bid for Sundance: report
","   You called after my bed-time.  I try desperately to get 6 hours and turn
   the phone off at 11pm.  Not always so, but I try.

   On 10/6/11 2:43 AM, William \"Bill\" O'Chee wrote:

     Jen,
     I tried calling you, but to no avail.
     Will try tomorrow evening your time.
     Yours,
     William O'Chee
     ********* 
     Partner
     Himalaya Consulting
     Australia:        +61 7 31033306
     Aust mob:  +61 422 688886
     China mob:   +86 1365 1001069
     On 06/10/2011, at 12:46 AM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

       A little discussion from our side.

       -------- Original Message --------

       Subject: Re: [EastAsia] Fwd: Fwd: INSIGHT - CN65 Re: CHINA/AUSTRALIA - 
                Hanlong lifts bid for Sundance: report                        
          Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:43:06 -0500                               

       We do know that Sundance directors unanimously recommended Hanlong's
       57c cash per share offer yesterday, implying a market cap of $A1.65
       billion, or a 65.3 percent premium.

       The new offer was reportedly contingent on Sundance securing an
       agreement with govts of Cameroon and Congo to approve conventions for
       the Mbalam project. Govt approvals in these countries were not
       expected to come unless Sundance could show it had the necessary
       financing - the increased bid has done that - so I'd be surprised if
       these govts did not make regulatory approvals now.

       Sundance did the right thing by holding out for a higher bid because
       we know Hanlong wants to get its hands on the project to try and break
       the stranglehold of BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Vale. Hanlong chairman
       Liu Han told Sichuan Daily that the successful purchase of Sundance
       will have a huge impact on Chinese mining and Chinese iron markets.
       Liu also said that Hanlong has signed a deal with an unnamed Chinese
       construction company to build the rail and port infrastructure for the
       Mbalam project, which it said would produce iron ore at a \"very
       competitive\" $US21 a tonne.

       Don't forget that there were also insider trading allegations against
       Hanlong employees in Oz on Sept 14, although it's starting to look
       like this might not be a deal breaker. Getting a read on Oz's foreign
       investment review board (FIRB) thinking on this is going to be more
       difficult. I will say that FIRB just approved a plan (yesterday) by
       Rio Tinto and Japan's Mitsubishi to to basically mop up the remaining
       shares in coal miner Coal & Allied that they don't already own. Rio
       currently owns 75.5 percent of Coal & Allied, and Mitsubishi 10.2
       percent. They've offered $125 a share, valuing the miner at $10.8
       billion, minus the special dividend of up to $8 per share proposed by
       Coal & Allied. I mention this because sometimes it feels like FIRB
       makes approval decisions in waves...

           -------- Original Message --------

           Subject: [EastAsia] CHINA/AUSTRALIA - Hanlong lifts bid for        
                    Sundance: report                                          
              Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:19:43 -0500                           

           Hanlong lifts bid for Sundance: report

           http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Hanlong-lifts-bid-for-Sundance-report-pd20111003-M9VUK?OpenDocument&src=hp14

             Chinese group Hanlong Mining has lifted its takeover offer for
             Sundance Resources Ltd, in order to secure an agreement on the
             deal from the takeover target, according to a reports by Reuters
             Media.

             Sources told Reuters that Hanlong has raised its offer from the
             50 cents per share bid made in July. The new bid would be
             revealed by Tuesday, the sources said.

             Hanlong's initial bid valued Sundance at around $1.4 billion.

             Earlier this morning, Sundance was placed in a trading halt,
             ahead of an announcement on its possible acquisition by Hanlong.

             \"The company requests an immediate trading halt of its
             securities until open of trading on Wednesday 5 October, 2011,
             or release of an announcement by the company,\" Sundance said.

             \"The reason for the request is to provide an update regarding
             the proposal from Hanlong Mining Limited to enter into a Scheme
             of Arrangement to acquire 100 per cent of the issued capital of
             Sundance Resources Limited.\"

             An announcement would be made to the market prior to open of
             trading on Wednesday, the company said.

             Hanlong is also looking to take over Bannerman Resources Ltd,
             with a $144 million bid.

             However, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission
             (ASIC) is investigating trades by Hanlong employees in both
             Sundance Resources and Bannerman Resources and has obtained
             court orders to restrict their travel.

             In September, Hanlong Mining said it would stand down its
             executives who were being investigated by the corporate watchdog
             for suspected insider trading in the Chinese company's takeover
             targets.

             Sundance shares last traded at 43 cents a share.

             With AAP

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-06 12:35:25",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1219122_re-china-australia-hanlong-lifts-bid-for-sundance-report-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","","william@himalayaconsulting.biz",""
1219135,"Re: CHINA/AUSTRALIA - Hanlong lifts bid for Sundance: report
","   Perfect.  I'll look forward to it.  Sleep well.

   On 10/6/11 7:12 AM, William \"Bill\" O'Chee wrote:

     Dear Jen,
     I shall remember that, but I do plead I was delayed by that business
     lunch. :)
     I shall call you this evening your time.  I have just come back from a
     district RSL meeting, and am too tired for words.  You have a great day,
     and we can talk tonight about these corruption issues and other China
     matters (including Hanlong Sichuan).
     Yours,
     William O'Chee
     ********* 
     Partner
     Himalaya Consulting
     Australia:        +61 7 31033306
     Aust mob:  +61 422 688886
     China mob:   +86 1365 1001069
     On 06/10/2011, at 8:35 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

       You called after my bed-time.  I try desperately to get 6 hours and
       turn the phone off at 11pm.  Not always so, but I try.

       On 10/6/11 2:43 AM, William \"Bill\" O'Chee wrote:

         Jen,
         I tried calling you, but to no avail.
         Will try tomorrow evening your time.
         Yours,
         William O'Chee
         ********* 
         Partner
         Himalaya Consulting
         Australia:        +61 7 31033306
         Aust mob:  +61 422 688886
         China mob:   +86 1365 1001069
         On 06/10/2011, at 12:46 AM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

           A little discussion from our side.

           -------- Original Message --------

           Subject: Re: [EastAsia] Fwd: Fwd: INSIGHT - CN65 Re:               
                    CHINA/AUSTRALIA - Hanlong lifts bid for Sundance: report  
              Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 09:43:06 -0500                           

           We do know that Sundance directors unanimously recommended
           Hanlong's 57c cash per share offer yesterday, implying a market
           cap of $A1.65 billion, or a 65.3 percent premium.

           The new offer was reportedly contingent on Sundance securing an
           agreement with govts of Cameroon and Congo to approve conventions
           for the Mbalam project. Govt approvals in these countries were not
           expected to come unless Sundance could show it had the necessary
           financing - the increased bid has done that - so I'd be surprised
           if these govts did not make regulatory approvals now.

           Sundance did the right thing by holding out for a higher bid
           because we know Hanlong wants to get its hands on the project to
           try and break the stranglehold of BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and
           Vale. Hanlong chairman Liu Han told Sichuan Daily that the
           successful purchase of Sundance will have a huge impact on Chinese
           mining and Chinese iron markets. Liu also said that Hanlong has
           signed a deal with an unnamed Chinese construction company to
           build the rail and port infrastructure for the Mbalam project,
           which it said would produce iron ore at a \"very competitive\" $US21
           a tonne.

           Don't forget that there were also insider trading allegations
           against Hanlong employees in Oz on Sept 14, although it's starting
           to look like this might not be a deal breaker. Getting a read on
           Oz's foreign investment review board (FIRB) thinking on this is
           going to be more difficult. I will say that FIRB just approved a
           plan (yesterday) by Rio Tinto and Japan's Mitsubishi to to
           basically mop up the remaining shares in coal miner Coal & Allied
           that they don't already own. Rio currently owns 75.5 percent of
           Coal & Allied, and Mitsubishi 10.2 percent. They've offered $125 a
           share, valuing the miner at $10.8 billion, minus the special
           dividend of up to $8 per share proposed by Coal & Allied. I
           mention this because sometimes it feels like FIRB makes approval
           decisions in waves...

               -------- Original Message --------

               Subject: [EastAsia] CHINA/AUSTRALIA - Hanlong lifts bid for    
                        Sundance: report                                      
                  Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:19:43 -0500                       

               Hanlong lifts bid for Sundance: report

               http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Hanlong-lifts-bid-for-Sundance-report-pd20111003-M9VUK?OpenDocument&src=hp14

                 Chinese group Hanlong Mining has lifted its takeover offer
                 for Sundance Resources Ltd, in order to secure an agreement
                 on the deal from the takeover target, according to a reports
                 by Reuters Media.

                 Sources told Reuters that Hanlong has raised its offer from
                 the 50 cents per share bid made in July. The new bid would
                 be revealed by Tuesday, the sources said.

                 Hanlong's initial bid valued Sundance at around $1.4
                 billion.

                 Earlier this morning, Sundance was placed in a trading halt,
                 ahead of an announcement on its possible acquisition by
                 Hanlong.

                 \"The company requests an immediate trading halt of its
                 securities until open of trading on Wednesday 5 October,
                 2011, or release of an announcement by the company,\"
                 Sundance said.

                 \"The reason for the request is to provide an update
                 regarding the proposal from Hanlong Mining Limited to enter
                 into a Scheme of Arrangement to acquire 100 per cent of the
                 issued capital of Sundance Resources Limited.\"

                 An announcement would be made to the market prior to open of
                 trading on Wednesday, the company said.

                 Hanlong is also looking to take over Bannerman Resources
                 Ltd, with a $144 million bid.

                 However, the Australian Securities and Investments
                 Commission (ASIC) is investigating trades by Hanlong
                 employees in both Sundance Resources and Bannerman Resources
                 and has obtained court orders to restrict their travel.

                 In September, Hanlong Mining said it would stand down its
                 executives who were being investigated by the corporate
                 watchdog for suspected insider trading in the Chinese
                 company's takeover targets.

                 Sundance shares last traded at 43 cents a share.

                 With AAP

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-06 14:15:20",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1219135_re-china-australia-hanlong-lifts-bid-for-sundance-report-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","","william@himalayaconsulting.biz",""
1219814,"more on anonymous
","Here ya go... xo...



Anonymous vs. Zetas Amid Mexico's Cartel Violence
November 2, 2011 | 1701 GMT


By Scott Stewart

The online activist collective Anonymous posted a message on the
Internet on Oct. 31 saying it would continue its campaign against
Mexican criminal cartels and their government supporters despite the risks.

The message urged inexperienced activists, who might not be practicing
proper online security measures, to abstain from participating. It also
urged individuals associated with Anonymous in Mexico not to conduct
physical pamphlet drops, participate in protests, wear or purchase Guy
Fawkes masks, or use Guy Fawkes imagery in their Internet or
physical-world activities. Guy Fawkes was a British Roman Catholic
conspirator involved in a plot to bomb the British Parliament on Nov. 5,
1605. The British celebrate the plot’s failure as Guy Fawkes Day each
Nov. 5. In modern times, the day has come to have special meaning for
anarchists. Since 2006, the style of the Guy Fawkes mask used in the
movie “V for Vendetta” has become something of an anarchist icon in the
United Kingdom and elsewhere.
Related Video

It was no coincidence, then, that in an Oct. 6 video Anonymous activists
set Nov. 5 as the deadline for Los Zetas to release an Anonymous
associate allegedly kidnapped in Veracruz. The associate reportedly was
abducted during an Anonymous leaflet campaign called “Operation Paperstorm.”

The Oct. 31 message acknowledged that the operation against Los Zetas,
dubbed “Operation Cartel,” would be dangerous. It noted that some
members of the collective would form a group of trusted associates to
participate in a special task force to execute the operation. It asked
supporters to pass information pertaining to drug trafficking to the
Operation Cartel task force for publication on the Internet via a
software tool developed by Anonymous that permits the anonymous passing
of information.

When discussing Anonymous, it is important to remember that Anonymous is
not a hierarchical organization, but rather a collective of activists.
Individuals who choose to associate themselves with the collective
frequently disagree over issues addressed by the collective and are free
to choose which actions to support and/or participate in.

With Nov. 5 approaching, and at least some elements of Anonymous not
backing down on their threats to Los Zetas, we thought it would be
useful to provide some context to the present conflict between Anonymous
and Los Zetas and to address some of its potential implications.

Context

The Mexican port city of Veracruz has been the epicenter of this event.
Veracruz has been a busy place over the past few months in terms of
Mexico’s cartel wars. The port serves as a critical transportation hub
for Los Zetas narcotics smuggling. Because of this, STRATFOR has
identified Veracruz as a bellwether for determining Los Zetas’
trajectory in the coming months.

In a major recent development in Veracruz, the Sinaloa cartel began an
offensive into the Zetas stronghold using the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva
Generacion (CJNG), which, under the name “Matazetas” (Spanish for “Zeta
killers”), conducted high-profile body dumps of more than 50 alleged
low-level Zetas operatives on Sept. 20 and Sept. 22. On Oct. 25, Mexican
marines arrested Carlos Arturo Pitalua-Carillo, also known as “El Bam
Bam,” who was the Zetas’ plaza boss in Veracruz. The Zetas in Veracruz
thus are feeling pressure from both the Mexican government and the CJNG.

The Anonymous Internet collective entered this dynamic in August with
its activities in Veracruz. It is common knowledge that members of
local, state and federal governments in Mexico support various cartel
groups. In the state of Veracruz, it is generally believed that some
members of the state government support Los Zetas, the dominant cartel
there. In response to this corruption, some who have associated
themselves with Anonymous launched Operation Paperstorm. These activists
distributed leaflets throughout Veracruz denouncing the state government
for supporting Los Zetas. They conducted leaflet distributions Aug. 13,
Aug. 20 and Aug. 29. They also released videos on the Internet on Aug.
26 and Aug. 29 condemning the Veracruz state government.

Activities outside Veracruz also played a part in setting the stage. On
Sept. 13, the bodies of two people who had been tortured and killed were
hung from a pedestrian overpass in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas state. Signs
left with the bodies said Los Zetas had killed the pair because they had
posted information pertaining to the Zetas on blogs that specialize in
reporting on the Mexican cartels. On Sept. 26, the decapitated body of
Marisol Macias Castaneda was found in a park in Nuevo Laredo. Macias,
who worked for a local newspaper, allegedly posted on cartel blogs using
the nickname “Laredo Girl.” A message found with her body said the Zetas
killed her due to her online activities.

Following the death of Laredo Girl, Anonymous claimed responsibility for
a distributed denial of service attack against the official website of
the state of Veracruz. Although her murder occurred outside of the
state, Anonymous said its attack on the Veracruz website was in response
to Laredo Girl’s death. This indicates that activists understand that
Los Zetas are active in both areas and suggests that Veracruz
state-based activists are driving the Anonymous campaign against Los Zetas.

Significantly, some individuals associated with Anonymous already were
unhappy with the state of Veracruz over its decision to prosecute two
individuals who had posted kidnapping reports on Twitter on Aug. 25 that
proved false. According to the reports, a group of children had been
abducted from a Veracruz school. The inaccurate reports allegedly caused
some two dozen traffic accidents as terrified parents rushed to the
school to check on their children. The so-called Twitter terrorists
initially were charged with offenses that could have carried a 30-year
sentence. Some associated with Anonymous, which has absolute freedom of
speech on the Internet as one of its foundational principles, took
umbrage at the prospect of such stiff penalties — especially given the
stark contrast with the impunity enjoyed by many cartel figures in Mexico.

STRATFOR began to focus on the story following the Oct. 6 release of the
video in which Anonymous activists threatened to release information
about individuals cooperating with Los Zetas if the Zetas did not
release the Anonymous activist kidnapped during Operation Paperstorm. In
light of the approaching Nov. 5 deadline, we published an analysis of
the topic on Oct. 28; the topic subsequently received a great deal of
media coverage.

This publicity has generated a very interesting response from Anonymous
that emphasizes that it is a collective, not an organization. Some
Anonymous activists began to back off the issue, erasing online user
accounts formerly associated with the campaign, suggesting the operation
against Los Zetas had been a hoax and claiming that no activist had been
kidnapped. Other activists suggested that the campaign was dangerous,
ill-advised and should be suspended. Still other activists became more
strident and determined in their posts, urging that the campaign
continue. As noted, Anonymous’ collective nature means activists can
select the actions they participate in, including Operation Cartel. It
would only take one dedicated individual to continue the operation.

The will to continue was manifested Oct. 29 with the hacking of the
personal website of Gustavo Rosario Torres, the former attorney general
of the Mexican state of Tabasco. The site was defaced with a message
from Anonymous Mexico stating that Rosario is a Zeta. Rosario has long
been accused in the Mexican and international media of protecting Los
Zetas, and videos long have circulated on YouTube making the same
charge. The hacking of his website thus did not provide any startling
revelation; Anonymous will have to uncover and publish original and
timely information if it hopes to do much damage to Los Zetas.

The determination by some activists to continue the operation against
Los Zetas also was reflected in the tone of the Oct. 31 message. Some
activists associated with Anonymous clearly feel compelled to continue
with the campaign over what they have characterized as an outpouring of
public support in the wake of the media coverage. According to their
Oct. 31 video statement:

“We received many expressions of support and solidarity as well as the
voices of people crying for help. We must remember that we are on the
side of the people, and we cannot let down the people, especially in
critical moments like the one they currently live in.”

We therefore anticipate that some Anonymous activists will continue the
campaign. We also believe that Los Zetas will respond.

Blowback

Mexico’s various cartels long have used the Internet to trumpet their
triumphs on the battlefield and to taunt and even degrade their enemies.
The cartels have posted videos of the torture, execution and desecration
of the corpses of rivals. They also frequently monitor narcoblogs and
sometimes even post on them. As demonstrated by the September blogger
killings in Nuevo Laredo, Los Zetas appear to possess at least some
rudimentary capability to trace online activity to people in the
physical world. They are known to employ their own team of dedicated
cyber experts and to have sources within the Mexican government.

In addition to technical intelligence, the Zetas can use old-fashioned
human intelligence to track down their online enemies. People sometimes
discuss their online identities with family and friends, and such
information can be overheard and passed to Los Zetas in return for
money. This danger was recognized in the Oct. 31 video from Anonymous
that urges participants in their campaign not to discuss their
activities with anyone.

In past Anonymous actions, like the December 2010 attack against PayPal
after the WikiLeaks scandal broke, the U.S. and British governments
arrested numerous individuals associated with Anonymous who allegedly
participated in the attacks. In June 2011, Turkey arrested dozens of
activists associated with Anonymous actions conducted against the
Turkish government in response to its plan to establish a national
Internet-filtering system. This indicates that some activists associated
with Anonymous are not nearly as anonymous as they would like to be.
Every action on the Internet leaves some sort of trail, making it very
difficult to be truly anonymous.

Like other Mexican cartels, Los Zetas do not take affronts lightly. Even
if Anonymous cannot provide information that damages Los Zetas smuggling
operations, the very fact that the collective has decided publicly to
challenge Los Zetas will result in some sort of response. The big
question is whether the Zetas possess the capability to trace the
organizers of the Anonymous action?

One challenge with tracking an entity such as Anonymous is that it is
intentionally amorphous. It is also as transnational as the Internet,
and it would be unsurprising if many of those chosen to participate in
the operation against Los Zetas are located in the United Sates, Europe
and other areas that are outside the Zetas’ immediate reach.

The amorphous nature of Anonymous can also cut the other way, however.
If Los Zetas abduct and execute random patrons at an Internet cafe,
behead them and place Guy Fawkes masks on their heads, it will be very
difficult to prove that they were not associated with Anonymous. Los
Zetas also could execute random people and claim they had provided
Anonymous with information in order to intimidate people from actually
cooperating with Anonymous. As Anonymous noted in its Oct. 31 video,
this is dangerous business indeed.

The Big Picture

How the Mexican public reacts to the Anonymous operation must be
watched. The criminal cartels and their violence have deeply affected
many people in Mexico’s middle and upper classes. STRATFOR talks to many
people in Mexico who fear that they or a family member will be
kidnapped. In many communities, especially places like Ciudad Juarez,
Torreon, Monterrey and Veracruz, businessmen find themselves in a
terrible bind. They face ever-increasing extortion demands from the
cartels while their business revenues dwindle because the violence
associated with those same cartels has frightened people into not going
out. This is forcing many small businesses to close. It also is creating
a great deal of frustration and resentment.

At the same time, Mexico has become one of the most dangerous countries
in the world for journalists, and many media organizations practice
heavy self-censorship to protect themselves. In the wake of the
September blogger killings, some of the narcoblogs, like Blog del Narco,
have exhibited strong signs of self-censorship inspired by fear. As a
result, many Mexicans believe the mainstream media are not of any real
assistance in the face of cartel violence.

Mexican citizens also are frustrated with their government, which, as
noted, is well-known for corruption. This sentiment is feeding
Anonymous’ original campaign in Veracruz. This frustration even has led
some people to begin discussing the creation of vigilante groups to
fight the cartels — though this has been attempted before in Mexico. As
we saw in the case of La Familia Michoacana, which began as such a
vigilante group, vigilantism frequently does not end well.

This is where Anonymous may fit in. With Mexican citizens unable to rely
on their government, the media or even armed vigilante groups for
assistance, they may embrace Anonymous, coming to view its form of
cybervigilantism as an outlet for their frustration. If Anonymous is
perceived as a safe way to pass information pertaining to cartel
activities, we may see people from all over the country begin to share
intelligence. Such human intelligence could very well prove to be far
more damaging to the cartels than any information Anonymous activists
can dredge up electronically. As this operation is becoming more widely
publicized, the pool of people outside Mexico who might wish to
participate will likely grow. The number of people inside Mexico who
wish to provide information might grow as well.

Anonymous has taken on many powerful entities in the past, such as major
transnational corporations and governments. But the repercussions from
participating in such operations were never as grave for online
activists as they are in this case. Being identified and detained by
Scotland Yard or the FBI is a far different situation than being
identified and detained by Los Zetas.


-- 
Jennifer Richmond
richmond@stratfor.com
w: (512) 744-4324
c: (512) 422-9335
www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-03 14:42:04",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1219814_more-on-anonymous-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","","troy.may@wimex.cn",""
1220381,"signed/pending spreadsheet
","14","2011-12-09 19:16:16",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1220381_signed-pending-spreadsheet-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","","mfriedman@stratfor.com","attach/106/106104_signed partnerships.xlsx"
1220919,"Fwd: Confederation Projects for Turkey
","   FYI, for your update
   Begin forwarded message:

     From: Reva Bhalla <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
     Date: March 16, 2010 10:42:51 PM CDT
     To: Meredith Friedman <mfriedman@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Confederation Projects for Turkey
     CONFEDERATION PROJECTS FOR TURKEY
     Cihan News Agency -- owns Zaman, Today's Zaman and other major Turkish
     media agencies
     Cihan provides news to: CNN International, BBC, NBC, MTV, CBS, ABC,
     Al-Jazeera, Abu Dhabi Tv, ARD, ZDF, SAT 1, TF1, Canal +, RAI, Tve,
     Antena 3, TV2 Denmark, Nos Tv, MJTV, NTV Japan, KBS, NTV Russia, TV6,
     IRIB, MEGA Channel, Bloomberg, MSMBC, ANS, Lider Tv and others. They
     have staff in Central Asia, Mideast, Balkans, Europe, South America,
     Africa, Far East. Permanent offices in places like Gaza, Kabul, Arbil.
     Political ideology:  Gulenist/loyal to ruling AKP
     My contact:  Abdulhamit Bilici (a.bilici@zaman.com.tr) - General
     Director of Cihan News Agency and columnist for Zaman
     Today's Zaman -- English-language version of Zaman; direct competitor to
     Hurriyet
     Has partnership with British daily The Times
     Political ideology: Gulenist/loyal to ruling AKP
     My contact: Bulent Kenes (b.kenes@todayszaman.com) - Editor in Chief of
     Today's Zaman  (both he and Bilici are extremely influential within the
     Gulen movement.)
     Additional contact:  Ali Aslan aslan@alihalit.com - columnist for
     Today's Zaman, based in Washington, DC
     Note -- I had a preliminary discussion with Mr. Bilici and Mr. Kenes
     about a partnership when I met with them at Zaman HQ in Istanbul. I also
     know their primary contact in DC. They would need a bit more explanation
     and coaxing. Their immediate response was that they publish all the
     information that they get on their Web site. What we would have to
     better explain is that we're looking for a direct partnership. If we
     have a deal with Hurriyet, then we should also have a deal with
     Cihan/Zaman to balance out politically.
     Dogan News Agency -  owns Hurriyet, Turkish Daily News and others
     Direct competitor to Cihan News Agency
     Political ideology:  A lot more neutral, but more in line with the
     nationalist/secularist camp
     Contacts:  Haluk Tukel - CEO of Dogan media group and Secretary-General
     of TUSIAD - main business association dominated by
     nationalist/secularists;  David Judson, editor in chief of Hurriyet -
     david.judson@tdn.com.tr;  Taylan Bilgic - managing editor of Hurriyet -
     taylan.bilgic@tdn.com.tr
      
     Note -- had dinner with David Judson, who explained why he was hesitant
     before to sign a deal with STRATFOR since Dogan media has been under
     attack by the Gulenists and AKP and are facing major tax evasion fines.
     They didnt want to also get branded as working with a 'shadow CIA'. Now
     he feels they have enough partnerships under his belt to move forward
     with STRATFOR.  My meeting with Haluk Tukel got cancelled last minute,
     but we're in touch via email and I think I'll be able to meet him when
     he's in DC in a couple weeks.
     EnergyReport  - An energy-focused magazine written in Turkish and
     English. Launched January 2010, monthly circulation. 
     Contacts:  Gulcin Fatma Kabasakalli (fkabasakalli@yahoo.com, +90 530 363
     14 84);   Faruk Demir - mfd2030@gmail.com ( 0.530.592 46 09)
     This is a very polished energy publication run by the topmost energy
     expert in Turkey, Faruk Demir and his assistant, Fatma Kabasakalli, who
     is the editor in chief. Faruk Demir was formerly on the Turkish national
     security council. Now he conducts a lot of energy negotiations on behalf
     of Turkey, but keeps a bit of distance from the government to give him
     some flexibility. He and his assistant are extremely well-connected. The
     magazine also has a lot of good analysis and insider information. They
     are already planning on publishing one of George's weeklies in their
     next publication. I'll bring a copy of the magazine when I come to
     Austin next week. If we set up a formal partnership with them, we can
     have regular access to the best resources on Turkey's energy relations
     with Russia, Azerbaijan, Europe, Central Asia, US, etc. This would be
     extremely useful for our source efforts.  I met with Faruk and Fatma for
     lunch while in Istanbul and discussed a partnership with Fatma. I will
     be seeing Faruk in DC in a couple weeks.
","2010-03-17 04:44:01",1,"2012-03-03 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1220919_fwd-confederation-projects-for-turkey-.html","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com","","richmond@stratfor.com",""
1223659,"merging turkey codes
","The following are sources you both use.  I am going to merge their
codes.  Please use the following codes for these people from here on out.

Bilici TR304
Kenes TR303
Sengonul TR312
Unuvar TR314
Demir TR325
Kabasakali TR324

-- 
Jennifer Richmond
China Director
Director of International Projects
richmond@stratfor.com
(512) 744-4324
www.stratfor.com
","2011-08-29 16:47:12",1,"2012-03-03 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1223659_merging-turkey-codes-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com,anya.alfano@stratfor.com,emre.dogru@stratfor.com,meredith.friedman@stratfor.com",""
1225569,"Re: [EastAsia] China - Coal
","See insight sent from CN65 last night.  Good stuff.  Let me know what 
else you need.

On 8/24/11 4:28 AM, Zhixing Zhang wrote:
> heard from news that stockpile have significantly dropped in the 
> recent two weeks due to summer peak, and that it would affect winter 
> power usage.
>
> knowing that we have clients interested in the issue, let us know if 
> we need to follow this or do any updates.

-- 
Jennifer Richmond
China Director
Director of International Projects
STRATFOR
w: 512-744-4324
c: 512-422-9335
richmond@stratfor.com
www.stratfor.com
","2011-08-24 12:31:31",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1225569_re-eastasia-china-coal-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","","eastasia@stratfor.com,melissa.taylor@stratfor.com",""
1226848,"INSIGHT - CN 65 Re: [OS] CHINA/MINING/GV - Imported iron ore supplies
 decline in China
","   **In response to the story below that imported iron ore supplies have
   declined.  Note that this report and the Commodore report the EA team was
   reviewing yesterday contradict, as the source notes.

   SOURCE: via CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: A - concrete data from shipbrokers say otherwise
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

   And almost immediately, the propaganda begins.  The article below, based
   on the new IO index says:

     \"Xinhua analysts said sharp declines of billet price and weakening
     demand for iron ore have led to declines in imported iron ore prices.
     \"Steel companies have also cut their bid prices for iron ore due to weak
     demand for steel in the coming winter and the relatively large amount of
     remaining stock, according to Xinhua analysts.\"

   Compare this with the report you sent me today from Commodore Research,
   which stated:

     \"As we have continued to stress in recent reports, spot availability of
     capesize vessels in the Atlantic basin has remained very tight. This
     tightness, combined with an increase in congestion at Australian and
     Brazilian ports (discussed in greater detail on page 9), and an increase
     in Chinese iron ore demand has caused capesize rates to rebound.\"

   And this today from my shipbroker:

     \"Just to prove The Bears wrong, Owners counter attack picked up momentum
     yesterday, West Aussie ore miners, who were very quiet from Last Friday,
     entered the market with 'several cargoes' including 'spot spot'. This
     complimented the increased demand in The Atlantic the day before and
     with further pushing for loading Atlantic for TA and for
     fronthaul yesterday, we had a very sharp rise in spot rates across
     the board again, with The Bulls buying paper and pushing
     physicals hard.... 
     \"Exporters focus is on getting ships to sell as many tonnes as they can
     produce and get out of their ports on ships that fit their schedules
     (and mitigate congestion costs). The focus is not on whether they have
     to pay 'a few dollars more freight' to ship them. They can only of
     course do this if The Buyers focus remains to guarantee they can receive
     as much (ore and coal) as they need, which keeps FOB prices at record
     highs and freight rates at a relatively small percentage of delivered
     costs.\"

   Note very carefully the language in the Xinhua report.  It refers to
   Xinhua analysts opinions, but these are at clear variance from the data
   from shippers and shipbrokers.  If Chinese demand for IO is down, why are
   capesize charter rates up, and the number of stems fixed increasing, not
   decreasing?

     -------- Original Message --------

     Subject: [OS] CHINA/MINING/GV - Imported iron ore supplies decline in    
              China                                                           
        Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:45:00 +1000                                 

      
     Imported iron ore supplies decline in China
     English.news.cn   2011-09-27 17:26:54     FeedbackPrintRSS

     http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/business/2011-09/27/c_131163147.htm

     BEIJING, Sept. 27 (Xinhua) -- Inventories of iron ore at 25 of China's
     major sea ports dropped to 94.17 million metric tons in the week ending
     on Sept. 26, according to the Xinhua-China Iron Ore Price Index, which
     was released on Tuesday.

     Last week's supplies of imported iron ore were 320,000 metric tons lower
     than that of the previous week, down 0.34 percent week-on-week,
     according to the index.

     The price index for 63.5-percent-purity and 58-percent-purity iron ore
     imports both dropped by one point to 186 points and 155 points,
     respectively.

     Xinhua analysts said sharp declines of billet price and weakening demand
     for iron ore have led to declines in imported iron ore prices.

     Steel companies have also cut their bid prices for iron ore due to weak
     demand for steel in the coming winter and the relatively large amount of
     remaining stock, according to Xinhua analysts.

     However, price corrections for imported iron ore will be limited as a
     result of rising shipping costs, the analysts said.
","2011-09-27 13:23:02",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1226848_insight-cn-65-re-os-china-mining-gv-imported-iron-ore.html","richmond@stratfor.com","","watchofficer@stratfor.com",""
1234734,"PAID SOURCE NETWORK
","   Here is the first cut of the proposed system. It lays out the basic
   procedural elements. Let us discuss, critique, and refine it.

    

                Proposed System to Develop a Paid Source Network

                                        

   Our efforts to develop into a true global intelligence company which
   offers its clients, analyses and forecasts, better than anyone else,
   requires, among other things, a reliable network of well-placed sources.
   What this means is that we will have to increasingly move towards
   developing paid sources. Obviously, our financial limitations will
   determine how fast we can achieve this goal.

    

   As of now we have very few paid sources who we hired as and when we came
   to know of them and we determined that we needed to have them and that we
   could from a financial standpoint. This approach served our needs for
   quite some time but now that we are aggressively moving towards global
   operations it is essential that we have a system by which we enhance our
   source capabilities. Such a system should allow us to uniformly develop
   the network across the various aors.

    

   As each aor enhances its understanding of various parts of its respective
   region, it is only natural that it will come across the need for paid
   sources. Each aor head working with the corresponding field analyst will
   identify the need for a source in x country or y region. These two senior
   analysts - given that they are jointly responsible for maintaining
   situational awareness - will determine the need based on the geopolitical
   significance of the area/issue.

    

   Once there is a consensus within the aor that having a paid source in a
   given area is critical to their operational needs, the aor will submit a
   request to the Vice-President of Tactical Intelligence (VP-TI) with all
   the necessary details justifying their specific requirement. The VP-TI,
   working with the CFO and CEO, would already have developed a budget to
   address the needs of all the aors within the analytical group, would then
   coordinate with the relevant field analyst and the CEO in reviewing the
   request. Whether or not a particular request will be approved will be
   based on the strategic priorities of the company, financial bandwidth,
   which aor takes precedence at a given point in time, and availability of
   reliable sources.

    

   Once an approval has been issued, the VP-TI will then work with the
   relevant field analyst to identify and process suitable candidates for the
   position. The field analyst will most likely have at least one candidate
   already in the pipeline and will provide the details (identity,
   background, occupation, affiliations, location, etc) of the candidate to
   the VP-TI. While the VP-TI is the one who will decide on whether or not
   person A will be hired as a paid source, he will be heavily dependent upon
   input from the field analyst to make his decision.

    

   The final stage is one where compensation will be negotiated with the
   prospective source. The VP-TI will let the field analyst know what the
   company can offer, which will then be relayed via the field analyst to the
   source. This proposed process is complete if and when the company and the
   source agree on a particular amount.  

     

    

    
","2009-12-10 14:47:29",1,"2012-03-03 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1234734_paid-source-network-.html","bokhari@stratfor.com","","excomm@stratfor.com",""
1239829,"fyi
","","2007-09-05 15:42:07",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1239829_fyi-.html","gfriedman@stratfor.com","","mfriedman@stratfor.com,eisenstein@stratfor.com","attach/107/107978_Intelligence Glossary.doc"
1264928,"INSIGHT - MOLDOVA - opinion on Biden's visit
","   SOURCE: MD101

 ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in Washington & Chisinau
 SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Head of Moldovan Lobby in Washington, but lives
 partially in Chisinau & super close to most politicians
 PUBLICATION: yes
 SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
 ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2
 DISTRIBUTION: Analysts, eurasia
 SOURCE HANDLER: Lauren/Antonia

 I believe that the visit in Russia is meant for the 'reset relations'
 scheme. The visits in Finland and Moldova are meant to 'ballance' the
 message towards the region (that's what the Americans usually do when
 they have a high profile visit to Moscow: they usually go to Eastern
 Europe, the Balts or Ukraine or Georgia... depending on the situation).
 Honestly, I don't expect something important from the visit in Moldova -
 it's a protocol and PR/image visit.

 It's possible that Transnistria be discussed (considering the European
 initiatives) but we'll not have a break-trough sit. It could be just a
 Chinese drop... but this is also very optimistic.

 If the Moldovans will take seriously all the messages referring to the
 consolidation of non-comunists parties and promoting the reforms in all
 fields, that would be the biggest achievement of the visit - on the
 short term.

 I'll meet a Biden's adviser after the visit and will let you know more.
","2011-03-08 15:00:04",1,"2012-03-05 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1264928_insight-moldova-opinion-on-biden-s-visit-.html","ben.preisler@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com,eurasia@stratfor.com",""
1272330,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of these
   in the US?
    What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
   I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
   whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
   because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
   revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding
   of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is expendable to
   cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of coercion.

   Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
   cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of el
   chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication as a
   tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable intelligence,
   the government will use it against the cartels. That's a physical threat,
   if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify that Anonymous can
   not directly effect physical security. Any impact to the cartel in
   revealing information will be from actions of rival cartels or the GoM.
   They may release information on a given politician being linked to the
   cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the politician will feel an impact
   (Just because Anonymous says there is a link, doesn't make it true). It
   would be up to others to take action.

   Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online activity
   (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to conduct significant
   logistics and business online. We don't know how much, but we do know they
   will have some points of operational vulnerability I have heard of cartels
   doing business online, but don't have specific examples which could be
   used in assessing their vulnerability online.

   by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired, arrested
   or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I should say,
   there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out politicians as
   colluding.
   On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

     Karen Hooper
     Latin America Analyst
     o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
     c: 512.750.7234
     STRATFOR
     www.stratfor.com
     On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
     Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing possible
     cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat Anonymous can pose
     to cartels. The video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing
     personal information on cartels as well as states a member had been
     kidnapped. I could not find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of
     the individual being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites
     (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an
     individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the Operation
     Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

     Link: themeData
     Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
     denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed out at
     drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
     criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked individual
     addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the most recent
     video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels
     in Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers, police,
     politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels do they
     specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of these in the
     US?
      What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
     group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
     face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
     mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their
     demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The potential of
     conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents a
     unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out at online
     bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing with any
     headaches from hackers before. 

     What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
          o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat to
     Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the
     head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using
     publication as a tool to force government action. If you reveal
     actionable intelligence, the government will use it against the cartels.
     That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
          o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online media
          o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out at
     cartels

     While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a threat
          o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess identifiable
     information on cartel members
          o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
     cartels
          o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
     identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in the
     realm of possibilities for
                 Anonymous
                 o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
     illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are
     known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't
     know how much, but we do know they will have some points of operational
     vulnerability

     Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the ultra-violent
     world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result, their understanding of
     cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when
     sitting in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
     retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online assault of
     cartels.
          o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists will
     cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these individuals are
     forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are often
     victims of extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the
     identity of these individuals will not have a significant impact on
     cartel                   operations. Politicans have been accused of
     working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before, however
     there has yet to be any consequences from this. by \"no consequences\"
     what exactly do you mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and
     that happens all the time.
          o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels are
     willing to go protect their operations.
             o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
             o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science community
     before, coercing computer science majors into working for them.
             o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
     discovering hackers within Mexico.
     need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply publishing
     tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the same camp as
     the bloggers

      

     On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

       Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but there
       are several issues to address and fix here.

       These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
       discussion:

            o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but we
       can't gloss over that fact
            o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference between
       stealing bank records from government computers and overloading
       www.loszetas.com main page.
            o     There's no thought out process of what sort of information
       could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is kept online and
       accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
       identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops, politicians and
       businessmen who need to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
       Think about why the bloggers and media were killed in previous
       instances. Was it because they revealed operational details, because
       they acted as informants, because they exposed links with officials or
       because they somehow sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what
       kind of information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
            o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
       realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure of
       damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for the
       technical ability by a very small number of its members to infiltrate
       certain networks and databases and steal information. Now what kind of
       information would a cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
       internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could information be found?
       Government databases? Once we know what kind of information is
       accessible, we can also know more about the consequences of
       dissemination.
            o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
       back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings done by
       people who may not understand the difference between an anon hacker
       and a blogger.

       On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

         wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

         -------- Original Message --------

          Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
             Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
             From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
         Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
               To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

         you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a lot
         more work

         You need to lay out:

         a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section is
         unclear
         b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
         therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
         c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
         d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone who
         breaches their systems or exposes their connections

         I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
         insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant levels
         of sophistication in their online presence, to include the use of
         cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no reason to
         assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
         protected fashion.

         Karen Hooper
         Latin America Analyst
         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
         c: 512.750.7234
         STRATFOR
         www.stratfor.com
         On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

         On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

         Link: themeData

         Trigger

         Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
         Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed out
         at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
         Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released depicting...?
         a person talking? a voice? words on a screen? exactly when?.  With
         the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
         the criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of
         Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
         journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker group
         demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
         consequences. The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal
         cartels and hackers, presents an unprecedented war front for the
         cartels. The vastly different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas
         leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have little
         experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no experience
         with the cartels. I do not believe for a second that the cartels
         have no experience with hackers.

          

         In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
         day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of
         releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up
         front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back.
         Provide enough details so we understand who this guy is and why/how
         he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing
         revealing information on cartel members and operations are true,
         cartels will likely respond with violence against individuals
         revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous
         members?. It also is likely that public disclosure of GOM officials
         who collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving the
         Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this means. You
         mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel
         will be able to retaliate against Anonymous remains unanswered .
         However, cartels will continue their threats against any individual
         using online media WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not
         talking about bloggers here. against the cartels.

          

         The Battle Space

         Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
         realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere of
         the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience geographical
         boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in
         cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They are physical people
         tho live in the real world. They have names and addresses - although
         most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power base
         consists of their technical capabilities in hacking. Any information
         connected to the Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers.
         (Identifying the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst of
         Mexico's population could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of
         what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
         Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in revenue,
         but it does not really matter if you don't run operations on the
         web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are also far
         less dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

         Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power base
         consists of the perceived anonymity that its members believe
         themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating through the
         internet. This gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
         and everything to practice general dickery. As the popular meme
         goes, anonymity + audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web
         of people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of
         serious IT capability. 

         The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been from
         targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

         The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
         Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
         maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
         commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money and
         issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight. There
         is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity.
         Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue and escalating
         brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing
         different types of threats. Cartels are always suffering at the
         hands of cartel on cartel violence. While battling each other,
         cartels still face arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels
         wish to avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
         have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
         bloggers in order to cover details of their operations. ok... but
         that's kind of a red herrng for this discussion. You need to focus
         on the possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume
         they have no cyber presence.

          

         Anonymous' Weapons

         Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
         criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
         combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly disseminating
         sensitive information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel
         statements via social media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean
         so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
         cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance of a
         targeted information operations campaign by technically elite
         individuals can not be overlooked should not be underestimated.
         Cartels view main stream media outlets and social media blogs as
         such a threat to their operations, that they have continued to
         target journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los
         Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the
         body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who denounce
         cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not
         really addressing the subheading

         As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet risks
         disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest Anonymous
         is capable of possessing information they threaten to release. By
         releasing identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
         cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those individuals.
         Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive information is limited
         by what is available via the Internet. Government computers
         connected to the Internet should always be considered a possibility
         of an attack. However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the
         US governments computer networks, information available to Mexico's
         intelligence collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you
         trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

          

         Cartel's Defense

                     A counter response to the video? by the cartels has yet
         to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped member by
         Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed
         by hackers so... how has there not been a counter response? also
         this undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is soley
         internet based, and underlines the vulnerabilities of associated
         members. How did they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that
         could very well give you some indication to the technical ability of
         the cartels . As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
         wide web , the cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely
         are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole
         agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume
         (and we have good intel indicating that) they are working on
         disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in
         any region of the world. Personal information including locations is
         only available if a hacker chooses to divulge it or if the subject
         of the attack is savvy enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only
         work for Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
         online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
         employing hackers of their own under their payroll? Stranger things
         have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                     Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
         Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the help of
         computer science majors through personal threats has been reported
         in the past where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels
         operate in the world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they
         will likely need the assistance of technical experts to help combat
         any threat by computer hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside
         of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable
         of identifying any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
         enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
         experience and resources than cartels, struggle to find hackers
         through investigations. A) How do you know they are not in Mexico?
         (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not
         all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                     In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
         likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with, brute
         force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT operations within
         Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals
         with alleged connections to hacker communities will likely be
         targeted and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and
         public display of violence will likely continue to be used to scare
         online media into submission i'm not really seeing the online
         media-international hacking group connection here.  The cruel
         manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer hackers
         have unlikely encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
         cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will remain to
         be seen until cartels are able to seek out and capture members of
         the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the collective bluff and
         simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 18:19:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1272330_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1272344,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Good point. 
   In terrorist terms they are more like grassroots people than AQ core. 
   From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:11:05 -0500
   To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
   Somehow we have to stop referring to 'anonymous' as a monolith.  They are
   a bunch of different people that essentially get together in an
   online-form of a mob to carry out some action. I'm not sure how to do this
   in writing consistently.  But let's start with shit like 'people joining
   Anonymous chatrooms and claiming to be part of the movement' or something
   like that. 

   Comments in green below.  This is coming together nicely. 

   On 10/24/11 11:19 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of
     these in the US?
      What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
     I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
     whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
     because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
     revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of
     understanding of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is
     expendable to cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of
     coercion.

     Anonymous does not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
     cartels.  mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of el
     chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication as a
     tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable intelligence,
     the government will use it against the cartels. That's a physical
     threat, if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify that
     Anonymous can not directly effect physical security. Any impact to the
     cartel in revealing information will be from actions of rival cartels or
     the GoM. They may release information on a given politician being linked
     to the cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the politician will feel
     an impact (Just because Anonymous says there is a link, doesn't make it
     true). It would be up to others to take action.  I think the way you
     have it worded in the above sentence is good.  Follow with a sentence
     explaining the rest of it, because readers will have the same question
     Karen did.  Something like 'Rather, the threat to cartels would come in
     what information anonymous could expose that is useful to their enemies'

     Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online
     activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to conduct
     significant logistics and business online. We don't know how much, but
     we do know they will have some points of operational vulnerability I
     have heard of cartels doing business online, but don't have specific
     examples which could be used in assessing their vulnerability online.

     by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired,
     arrested or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I
     should say, there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out
     politicians as colluding.
     On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

       Karen Hooper
       Latin America Analyst
       o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
       c: 512.750.7234
       STRATFOR
       www.stratfor.com
       On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
       Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
       possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
       Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by people using the
       banner of Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on
       cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
       find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being
       kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and
       Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual posting
       flyers ['critical of cartels'?] in Veracruz as part of the Operation
       Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation. [this is good and
       will be enough information to go with, though you'll need a quick
       explanation of what 'operation paperstorm' is.  Adding something in
       the explaining the flyers will work]

       Link: themeData
       Anonymous, a decentralized hacker collective  famous for distributed
       denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government and corporate websites,
       lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
       denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video depicting a
       masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With
       the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
       the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities
       of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists who collude with
       criminal cartels do they specify whether or not these are all in
       Mexico? Are some of these in the US?
        What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
       group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
       face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
       was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
       their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
       potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
       presents a unique threat towards TCOs [If TCO= transnational criminal
       organization, it's not really unique.  Many such organizations do
       their crimes online, and have been hacked in response--like the
       nigerian princess scams. I think you should just say it's a unique
       threat to DTOs] . We know of cartels lashing out at online bloggers,
       but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches
       from hackers before. 

       What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
            o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat
       to Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to
       the head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using
       publication as a tool to force government action. If you reveal
       actionable intelligence, the government will use it against the
       cartels. That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
            o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
       media
            o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out
       at cartels

       While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
       threat, if it had access to certain types of information:

               -The threat is in the information they can expose that may be
   of use to any cartel enemies.  That could be to the government or other
   cartels or even local citizens (the last one may be a stretch, but i could
   imagine someone discrediting cartel members in the eyes of the public).

            o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims tocut possess
       identifiable information on cartel members 
            o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
       cartels [cut this part here, and make the point at the end of this
       section/paragraph]
            o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
       identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in
       the realm of possibilities for
                   Anonymous
                   o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
       illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are
       known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't
       know how much, but we do know they will have some points of
       operational vulnerability

      -They claim to have information on those that collude with cartels 
   (use the stuff you have above].  Releasing such information could hurt
   cartels' support networks, but most of these people are also easily
   replaceable. 
               -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents have
   access to, and doubt they have such information that provides any sort of
   existential threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 

       Most Anonymous hackers are likely far removed from the ultra-violent
       world of drug trafficking in Mexico, but it's quite possible that some
       of its members in this campaign are in Mexico and opposed to the
       violence [or something like that.  my limited understanding is there
       are still activist crusader-types in Mexico, yeah?  it seems very
       possible those with a bit of time or computer skills could have joined
       up with anonymous] . As a result, their understanding of cartel
       activities may be limited. Anonymous members in other countries may
       act with confidence when sitting in front of a computer, but this may
       blind them to any possible retribution. They may not even know the
       impact of any online assault of cartels.  [the part below and above is
       written rather normatively.  We need to take that out.  just state the
       facts]
            o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists will
       cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these individuals are
       forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are often
       victims of extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the
       identity of these individuals will not have a significant impact on
       cartel                   operations. Politicans have been accused of
       working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before, however
       there has yet to be any consequences from this. by \"no consequences\"
       what exactly do you mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and
       that happens all the time.
            o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels are
       willing to go protect their operations.
               o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
               o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
       community before, coercing computer science majors into working for
       them.
               o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
       discovering hackers within Mexico.
       need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply publishing
       tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the same camp as
       the bloggers  [yes, i think it needs to be clear that their damage
       will be similar to what bloggers or wikileaks can do--limited.  But
       maybe more a danger to themselves, since they are no longer
       challenging governments, but criminal organizations]

        

       On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

         Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but there
         are several issues to address and fix here.

         These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
         discussion:

              o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but
         we can't gloss over that fact
              o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
         between stealing bank records from government computers and
         overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
              o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
         information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
         kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
         talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
         politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
         going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
         killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
         operational details, because they acted as informants, because they
         exposed links with officials or because they somehow sullied the
         cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of information is damaging
         to the cartels themselves?
              o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
         realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure of
         damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for the
         technical ability by a very small number of its members to
         infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal information. Now
         what kind of information would a cartel keep on a network that is
         connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
         information be found? Government databases? Once we know what kind
         of information is accessible, we can also know more about the
         consequences of dissemination.
              o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
         back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings done
         by people who may not understand the difference between an anon
         hacker and a blogger.

         On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

           wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

           -------- Original Message --------

            Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
               Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
               From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
           Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                 To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

           you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a
           lot more work

           You need to lay out:

           a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section
           is unclear
           b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
           therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
           c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
           d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone
           who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

           I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
           insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant levels
           of sophistication in their online presence, to include the use of
           cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no reason
           to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
           protected fashion.

           Karen Hooper
           Latin America Analyst
           o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
           c: 512.750.7234
           STRATFOR
           www.stratfor.com
           On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

           On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

           Link: themeData

           Trigger

           Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
           Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed
           out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
           Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released
           depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a screen?
           exactly when?.  With the most recent video release, Anonymous
           makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels. Threats such as
           releasing identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
           politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels.
           The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped
           member otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
           between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
           unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly different
           operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
           Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
           believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
           not believe for a second that the cartels have no experience with
           hackers.

            

           In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as
           a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of
           releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up
           front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit
           back. Provide enough details so we understand who this guy is and
           why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of
           possessing revealing information on cartel members and operations
           are true, cartels will likely respond with violence against
           individuals revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you mean
           Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public disclosure of
           GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take
           action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand
           what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
           effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against Anonymous
           remains unanswered . However, cartels will continue their threats
           against any individual using online media WC.... you mean tools?
           or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers here. against the
           cartels.

            

           The Battle Space

           Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
           realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere of
           the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience geographical
           boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in
           cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They are physical people
           tho live in the real world. They have names and addresses -
           although most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power
           base consists of their technical capabilities in hacking. Any
           information connected to the Internet is vulnerable to exploits by
           hackers. (Identifying the pc's of individual cartel members in the
           midst of Mexico's population could be quite difficult.  Remember
           that most of what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if
           you are Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in
           revenue, but it does not really matter if you don't run operations
           on the web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are
           also far less dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

           Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power base
           consists of the perceived anonymity that its members believe
           themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating through the
           internet. This gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
           and everything to practice general dickery. As the popular meme
           goes, anonymity + audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large
           web of people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort
           of serious IT capability. 

           The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been
           from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

           The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
           Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
           maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
           commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money and
           issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight. There
           is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar
           capacity.  Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue
           and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
           experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels are
           always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence. While
           battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law Enforcement
           Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in the flow of
           drugs and money, cartels have targeted media outlets. Murdering
           journalists and online bloggers in order to cover details of their
           operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for this
           discussion. You need to focus on the possible vulnerabilities of
           the cartels. Don't just assume they have no cyber presence.

            

           Anonymous' Weapons

           Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
           criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
           combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly disseminating
           sensitive information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel
           statements via social media and defaced websites in Mexico you
           mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their
           video to cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance
           of a targeted information operations campaign by technically elite
           individuals can not be overlooked should not be underestimated.
           Cartels view main stream media outlets and social media blogs as
           such a threat to their operations, that they have continued to
           target journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by
           Los Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on
           the body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
           denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive here,
           and it's not really addressing the subheading

           As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet risks
           disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest
           Anonymous is capable of possessing information they threaten to
           release. By releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
           Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
           individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
           information is limited by what is available via the Internet.
           Government computers connected to the Internet should always be
           considered a possibility of an attack. However, as with the
           compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer networks,
           information available to Mexico's intelligence collection may not
           be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This isn't
           clear at all

            

           Cartel's Defense

                       A counter response to the video? by the cartels has
           yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped
           member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the
           threat posed by hackers so... how has there not been a counter
           response? also this undermines your statements above about how
           Anonymous is soley internet based, and underlines the
           vulnerabilities of associated members. How did they find teh
           Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well give you some
           indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As Anonymous
           exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the cartels
           will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed for them
           Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies dedicated to
           fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good
           intel indicating that) they are working on disrupting the
           cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in any region
           of the world. Personal information including locations is only
           available if a hacker chooses to divulge it or if the subject of
           the attack is savvy enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only
           work for Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
           online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
           employing hackers of their own under their payroll? Stranger
           things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                       Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
           Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the help
           of computer science majors through personal threats has been
           reported in the past where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since
           cartels operate in the world of urban violence and drug
           trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of technical
           experts to help combat any threat by computer hackers.  While
           identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is
           unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers operating
           outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies such as the FBi,
           with far more technical experience and resources than cartels,
           struggle to find hackers through investigations. A) How do you
           know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they kidnapped???)
           B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are equally difficult
           to track down

                       In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
           likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with, brute
           force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT operations within
           Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?. 
           Individuals with alleged connections to hacker communities will
           likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco
           banners and public display of violence will likely continue to be
           used to scare online media into submission i'm not really seeing
           the online media-international hacking group connection here.  The
           cruel manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer
           hackers have unlikely encountered before in their life. Whether
           the fear of cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous
           will remain to be seen until cartels are able to seek out and
           capture members of the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the
           collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience
           that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:33:26",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1272344_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1272397,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Yes, in response to your first question. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Colby Martin\" <colby.martin@stratfor.com>
   To: analysts@stratfor.com
   Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 7:47:49 PM
   Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels

   Sean, just to be clear

   Your point is that Anonymous hasn't mattered?  Is your argument that
   hackers haven't mattered either?  because if Anonymous is a mob of hackers
   as you argue, how haven't they mattered to their targets?  what about all
   the money spent fighting them?  and as Tristan just pointed out - how
   about HBGary Federal?  He said the CEO's SSN and address were posted on
   Twitter.  What about all the sensitive emails that were lost?  We have no
   way of knowing what was in those emails, or how they are being used to
   make money at the expense of HBGary.  I have always agreed that they
   haven't reached a level of threat to the US, but that surely doesn't mean
   they won't.  And there are quite a few countries, organizations, and
   people below that rather high standard who could not withstand an attack,
   including an email purge of personal emails onto the web. 

   On 10/24/11 7:33 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     As far as Aurora, I haven't followed it closely. Did they ever identify
     the attackers or number of attackers? I thought the target set was the
     only thing that led people to believe the Chinese government was
     responsible.

     2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
     responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating cyber
     intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case HUMINT is
     just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT capabilities does not
     indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers. NSA may have there own
     department for tracking hackers but it does not make it SIGINT.

     Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

     Wikipedia provides an indepth explanation on SIGINT . But in short,
     SIGINT is the capability in exploiting signals provided by communication
     devices, and what can be obtained by exploiting the signals. Combining
     computer network operations and SIGINT is innaccurate, because while
     SIGINT may be used with other intelligence disciplines in order to
     identify a hacker, it is not necessary and is no more related than any
     other intel discipline. SIGINT could help you identify a computer
     devices (not the operator) emitting a signal (wifi), and cryptanalysis,
     which is also separate from SIGINT but often used in conjunction, could
     help in providing methods to decrypt messages over a network, but SIGINT
     wouldn't obtain those messages.

     In order to exploit computer network operations, the operators involved
     are specifically trained in computer science disciplines and
     technologies tailored specifically for computer activity.

     NSA also is the primary agency for cryptanalysis. Because of
     technological demands of SIGINT and cryptanalysis, NSA has enormous
     resources in R&D, so I can see why the USG would move some CNO to NSA.
     But their SIGINT capabilities are not indicators of CNO capabilities.

     Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary labor
     for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are discussing
     operations on the scale of causing physical damage to extremely
     sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of a cyber attack that
     matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not mattered.  You chose the most
     prolific example of a cyber attack (which the whole operation consisted
     mainly outside of the cyber attack itself). Anything that falls short of
     this doesn't matter? Define what matters. None of anonymous' attacks
     have physically damaged secret Iranian nuclear facilities, but I think
     you are downplaying too much the significance of exposing corporate
     secrets, halting businesses' revenues, and embarrassing State actors by
     defacing their websites.

     On 10/24/11 5:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

       On 10/24/11 5:07 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

         On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

           1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already The USG
           arrested 10 Russian spies last year, are you willing to say
           foreign intel is not capable of conducting espionage undetected?
           No, of course not.  But I also would not argue that the SVR is so
           good to be immune to detection, as you are arguing with hackers. 
           I'm saying they are more detectable than you think.  There is no
           such thing as truly anonymous.  Everythign leaves a trail.  Will
           that trail in every instance lead to a single individual? no.  but
           it can lead to a place, an organization, and often, an
           individual. 

           2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
           responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating
           cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this
           case HUMINT is just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT
           capabilities does not indicate its capabilities in tracking
           hackers. NSA may have there own department for tracking hackers
           but it does not make it SIGINT.

           Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

           The question is if the attack is high priority enough.  Many
           people assume there is no attribution because there is no
           response, but I don't think that is accurate.  Many people say
           this, because no attribution is one reason for no response.  Yes,
           they do, and if they think that is the primary reason for lack of
           response, then I think they are wrong. 

           3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new
           laptop and start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack
           involves much more than a recently bought laptop.  In the same way
           there is an attack cycle for a terrorist attack or crime, there is
           one for a cyber attack.  A very simple attack may be as hard to
           trace as a nearly-random mugging in the dark in a neighborhood
           with much more serious crime and no CCTV cameras.  A more
           complicated attack, however, involves pre-operational
           surveillance, developing exploits, developing programs and code,
           gaining access, exploiting that, and carrying out an attack. 
           Discovering exploits and writing code can be done entirely
           offline, out of sight of law enforcement or intel agencies.
           Pre-operational surveillance and gaining access (the point of the
           exploit you write offline) would fit in my example. The point is,
           if you don't link your computer to identifiable information, you
           remain anonymous. Just like people use certain methods to build
           IEDs, people use certain mehtods to design programs and code for
           cyber attacks.  Over time, those methods become identifiable and
           more and more attributable. This is, for example, how AURORA is
           linked back to the Chinese.  and very specific Chinese, I may add.
           Being connected or unconnected doesn't matter, eventually you have
           to use what you develop, or copy from someone, and all of those
           things can be analyzed.   And that takes time, giving more time
           for your exposure Exposure comes from network activity with the
           target, a lot of the pre-operational phase of an attack can occur
           without network activity. Look at everything that went into
           Stuxnet as a great example, that couldn't be done with one person
           with a new laptop. Writing the code and hacking was just a small
           part of necessary labor for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't
           think we are discussing operations on the scale of causing
           physical damage to extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is
           an example of a cyber attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so
           far has not mattered.   All of this activity provides activity and
           evidence which helps for attribution.  Of course it is always
           possible to develop an attack, just like any other operation, that
           even the best law enforcement and national intelligence agencies
           have trouble or cannot attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that
           it's very difficult for someone to successfully use Anonymous as a
           cover and have NSA, GHQ, MID, Aman, etc, be unable to attribute
           it.  How do you know if NSA or GHQ is effective in identifying
           hackers?I don't, but I'm confident they are far better than you
           are allowing for.    They may not choose to cover it if it is
           small scale crime, however. 
           On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored
             cyber warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing
             that, since you can conduct a cyber attack without associating
             with a hacker group and still deny / cover actions on behalf of
             the State. An individual attacking US computer assets from
             China, may be working by himself or on behalf of the Chinese
             government, but unless the US has other intel on the Chinese
             government's cyber warfare activities in order to corroborate
             there is little capability to distinguish.

             It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
             operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets
             from SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual
             responsible for hacking State run servers. In the past, I have
             turned to SIGINT organizations for collections on computer
             related material, but this was due to the US being behind in
             cyber warfare, and not knowing where to assign responsibility.
             However, this has changed dramatically in the last couple of
             years.

             Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As
             an extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go
             to a Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the
             online activity to something revealing (accessing personal email
             accounts, tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop,
             etc..), and begin hacking government email accounts then never
             use the laptop again. Unless LEA could get an accurate
             description of my appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible
             security cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

             Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to
             these enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied
             to specific computer-related activities because of the
             difficulty in identifying individuals.

             I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown,
             would be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a
             common participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a
             State? Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that
             State agent organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter
             buddies, what signs could a LEA look for to distinguish?

             On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

               In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a
               bit)

               1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything
               actually harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't,
               but i'm very doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first
               real case where they could do some minor damage--to individual
               people, not not to an organization or anything that would come
               as a serious or strategic threat. 

               2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is
               actually pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as
               a cover, but that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could
               probably still be attributed if important enough to those
               agencies.  The recent attack on Sony actually brings this
               issue up- Whoever is calling themselves anonymous denies they
               did it.  And keep in mind how much they have claimed an
               publicized attacks in the past, even before they were carried
               out.  The attack on the Playstation Network was more
               sophisticated than anonymous' usual work (though potentially
               coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that distracted
               Sony's IT security).  But whoever did it, again, no real
               damage came of it.  Congress is holding hearings over data
               security, but this is no different than the OC groups stealing
               your credit card information.  LE will go after them, have
               some success, but the threat is not that large. 
               On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

                 I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to
                 have a broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no
                 nothing, or almost nothing about what this group is and the
                 threat it poses. Reviewing their list of attacks
                 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in
                 most of the cases, they are the a**gooda** guys, sort of a
                 Robin Hood of the internet . The interesting thing when it
                 comes to their interactions with the cartels is the dubious
                 role they play: at the same time they can be fighting crime
                 by revealing cartel members/supporters, but they can also
                 put lives in risk.

                 However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
                 Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth,
                 can conduct a cyber attack under a**Anonymousa** is
                 worrisome.
                 (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

                 If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
                 websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to
                 know more about these guys. Who they are? What are they
                 interested in? How they operate? Who they have targeted so
                 far? How can I defend myself from them? In what countries
                 are they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use
                 them to achieve any particular goal?

                 On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                   nice.  i still think the central focus, and what
                   everything else can build off of, is that Anonymous
                   doesn't know the threat they pose to innocent people
                   caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing on
                   journalists or taxi drivers they show little understanding
                   of the situation.  This has long term implications in not
                   just Mexico.  They don't consider the consequences of
                   their actions and they act without understanding the
                   environment.  It was the same when they released
                   information on the Sony Playstation network to protest
                   Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

                   On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                     Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of
                     discussing possible cartel responses, the focus is on
                     what type of threat Anonymous can pose to cartels. The
                     video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing
                     personal information on cartels as well as states a
                     member had been kidnapped. I could not find any sources
                     outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being
                     kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous
                     Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be
                     an individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the
                     Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is
                     speculation.

                     Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
                     distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on
                     government websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the
                     Internet with a statements denouncing Mexicoa**s
                     criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked
                     individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on October
                     10? With the most recent video release, Anonymous makes
                     bold threats towards the criminal cartels in Mexico.
                     Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers,
                     police, politicians, and journalists who collude with
                     criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas
                     release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
                     consequences. In the Anonymousa** video, this coming
                     November 5th was mentioned as a day cartels could expect
                     Anonymousa** reaction if their demands of releasing a
                     kidnapped member are not met. The potential of conflict
                     between Mexicoa**s criminal cartels and hackers,
                     presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of
                     cartels lashing out at online bloggers, but I havena**t
                     seen any reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches
                     from hackers before. 

                     What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                         a*-c-    Anonymous would not pose a direct physical
                     security threat to Mexican cartels.
                         a*-c-    Anonymous' power base is the ability to
                     exploit online media
                         a*-c-    Anonymous hackers do not have to be in
                     Mexico to lash out at cartels

                     While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to
                     pose a threat
                         a*-c-    It is unknown if Anonymousa**s claims to
                     possess identifiable information on cartel members
                         a*-c-    It is unknown what information Anonymous
                     could acquire on cartels
                         a*-c-    Bank accounts, any online transactions or
                     communications, identifiable information on cartels
                     members have to be considered in the realm of
                     possibilities for
                                 Anonymous
                                 o    Anonymous has demonstrated ita**s
                     ability to reveal illicit online activity (child
                     pornography rings)

                     Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
                     ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
                     result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
                     limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting
                     in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any
                     possible retribution. They may not even know the impact
                     of any online assault of cartels.
                         a*-c-    Revealing information on taxi drivers and
                     journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not
                     understand some of these individuals are forced to
                     collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are
                     often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
                     halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals
                     will not have a significant impact on cartel            
                           operations. Politicans have been accused of
                     working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor)
                     before, however there has yet to be any consequences
                     from this.
                         a*-c-    Anonymous hackers may not understand the
                     extent cartels are willing to go protect their
                     operations.
                             o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                             o    Cartels have reached out to the computer
                     science community before, coercing computer science
                     majors into working for them.
                             o    This provides the cartels with the
                     possibility of discovering hackers within Mexico.

                      

                     On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                       Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the
                       idea but there are several issues to address and fix
                       here.

                       These are the bullets of my main analytical concern
                       with the discussion:

                           a*-c-    we don't know who got kidnapped or why.
                       that's fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                           a*-c-    \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                       difference between stealing bank records from
                       government computers and overloading www.loszetas.com
                       main page.
                           a*-c-    There's no thought out process of what
                       sort of information could anon have on the cartels.
                       What kind of info is kept online and accessible to
                       potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
                       identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
                       politicians and businessmen who need to worry about
                       what anon is going to be saying. Think about why the
                       bloggers and media were killed in previous instances.
                       Was it because they revealed operational details,
                       because they acted as informants, because they exposed
                       links with officials or because they somehow sullied
                       the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
                       information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                           a*-c-    Once you identify this info - think about
                       if anon can realistically access it and disseminate it
                       so it causes a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have
                       any intelligence capacity except for the technical
                       ability by a very small number of its members to
                       infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal
                       information. Now what kind of information would a
                       cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
                       internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
                       information be found? Government databases? Once we
                       know what kind of information is accessible, we can
                       also know more about the consequences of
                       dissemination.
                           a*-c-    What's the IT capacity of a cartel?
                       Sufficient to trace back attacks? If it's not, there
                       risks to be a lot of killings done by people who may
                       not understand the difference between an anon hacker
                       and a blogger.

                       On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                         wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                         -------- Original Message --------

                          Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                             Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                             From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                         Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                               To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                         you've got some of the issues here, but this is
                         going to need a lot more work

                         You need to lay out:

                         a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your
                         trigger section is unclear
                         b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence
                         is, and therefore their vulnerabilities and
                         capabilities
                         c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high
                         security anything
                         d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to
                         kill anyone who breaches their systems or exposes
                         their connections

                         I also just want to point out that we have
                         reasonable reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very
                         least has some significant levels of sophistication
                         in their online presence, to include the use of
                         cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
                         is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also
                         conduct business online, in a protected fashion.

                         Karen Hooper
                         Latin America Analyst
                         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                         c: 512.750.7234
                         STRATFOR
                         www.stratfor.com
                         On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                         On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                         --
                         Sean Noonan
                         Tactical Analyst
                         Office: +1 512-279-9479
                         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
                         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
                         www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-25 03:18:15",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1272397_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1273397,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   if anonymous outs taxi cab drivers working with Zeta, they are dead.  that
   is both simple and devastating.  If they release email accounts of GOM
   folks, and there are cartel members in that address book that would be
   devastating.  I think our definitions of devastating are different.  I
   agree the ability of these folks to bring down governments is minimal, but
   I am willing to bet the next deep throat scenario will come via a hacker
   and information they are able to steal. 

   On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already

     2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  The question is if the attack is high
     priority enough.  Many people assume there is no attribution because
     there is no response, but I don't think that is accurate. 
     has NSA told you otherwise?  i am unclear, are you saying the entire
     darknet is mapped, or could be mapped, only it isn't because the NSA
     doesn't care or doens't share? 
     3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new laptop and
     start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack involves much more than
     a recently bought laptop.  In the same way there is an attack cycle for
     a terrorist attack or crime, there is one for a cyber attack.  A very
     simple attack may be as hard to trace as a nearly-random mugging in the
     dark in a neighborhood with much more serious crime and no CCTV cameras.
     so simple=low damage, and complicated = more damage?  if you hacked
     Calderon's blackberry and found out who his contacts were, and one of
     them was Chapo's sister, it would be simple and devastating.  A more
     complicated attack, however, involves pre-operational surveillance,
     developing exploits, developing programs and code, gaining access,
     exploiting that, and carrying out an attack.  And that takes time,
     giving more time for your exposure. Look at everything that went into
     Stuxnet as a great example, that couldn't be done with one person with a
     new laptop.  All of this activity provides activity and evidence which
     helps for attribution.  Of course it is always possible to develop an
     attack, just like any other operation, that even the best law
     enforcement and national intelligence agencies have trouble or cannot
     attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that it's very difficult for
     someone to successfully use Anonymous as a cover and have NSA, GHQ, MID,
     Aman, etc, be unable to attribute it.  They may not choose to cover it
     if it is small scale crime, however. 
     On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored cyber
       warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing that, since
       you can conduct a cyber attack without associating with a hacker group
       and still deny / cover actions on behalf of the State. An individual
       attacking US computer assets from China, may be working by himself or
       on behalf of the Chinese government, but unless the US has other intel
       on the Chinese government's cyber warfare activities in order to
       corroborate there is little capability to distinguish.

       It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
       operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets from
       SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual responsible for
       hacking State run servers. In the past, I have turned to SIGINT
       organizations for collections on computer related material, but this
       was due to the US being behind in cyber warfare, and not knowing where
       to assign responsibility. However, this has changed dramatically in
       the last couple of years.

       Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As an
       extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go to a
       Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the online
       activity to something revealing (accessing personal email accounts,
       tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop, etc..), and
       begin hacking government email accounts then never use the laptop
       again. Unless LEA could get an accurate description of my appearance
       from Starbuck's patrons or possible security cameras, I can not think
       of way to identify me.

       Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to these
       enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied to specific
       computer-related activities because of the difficulty in identifying
       individuals.

       I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown, would
       be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a common
       participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a State?
       Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that State agent
       organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter buddies, what signs
       could a LEA look for to distinguish?

       On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a bit)

         1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything actually
         harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't, but i'm very
         doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first real case where
         they could do some minor damage--to individual people, not not to an
         organization or anything that would come as a serious or strategic
         threat. 

         2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is actually
         pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as a cover, but
         that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could probably still be
         attributed if important enough to those agencies.  The recent attack
         on Sony actually brings this issue up- Whoever is calling themselves
         anonymous denies they did it.  And keep in mind how much they have
         claimed an publicized attacks in the past, even before they were
         carried out.  The attack on the Playstation Network was more
         sophisticated than anonymous' usual work (though potentially
         coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that distracted Sony's IT
         security).  But whoever did it, again, no real damage came of it. 
         Congress is holding hearings over data security, but this is no
         different than the OC groups stealing your credit card information. 
         LE will go after them, have some success, but the threat is not that
         large. 
         On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

           Link: themeData

           I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to have a
           broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no nothing, or
           almost nothing about what this group is and the threat it poses.
           Reviewing their list of attacks
           (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most of
           the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood of the
           internet . The interesting thing when it comes to their
           interactions with the cartels is the dubious role they play: at
           the same time they can be fighting crime by revealing cartel
           members/supporters, but they can also put lives in risk.

           However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
           Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can
           conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
           (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

           If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
           websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to know
           more about these guys. Who they are? What are they interested in?
           How they operate? Who they have targeted so far? How can I defend
           myself from them? In what countries are they active? Should I
           worry about them at all? Can I use them to achieve any particular
           goal?

           On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

             nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else
             can build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they
             pose to innocent people caught up in the terror that is Mexico. 
             By focusing on journalists or taxi drivers they show little
             understanding of the situation.  This has long term implications
             in not just Mexico.  They don't consider the consequences of
             their actions and they act without understanding the
             environment.  It was the same when they released information on
             the Sony Playstation network to protest Sony.  They hurt
             innocent people to prove a point. 

             On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

               Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
               possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
               Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by
               Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on cartels
               as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
               find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the
               individual being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites
               (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it
               may be an individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the
               Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

               Link: themeData
               Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
               distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government
               websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
               statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a
               video depicting a masked individual addressing Mexican drug
               cartels on October 10? With the most recent video release,
               Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels in
               Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers,
               police, politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal
               cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow
               kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. In the
               Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
               day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands
               of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The potential of
               conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
               presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels
               lashing out at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any
               reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers
               before. 

               What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                    o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
               threat to Mexican cartels.
                    o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit
               online media
                    o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to
               lash out at cartels

               While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose
               a threat
                    o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
               identifiable information on cartel members
                    o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could
               acquire on cartels
                    o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
               communications, identifiable information on cartels members
               have to be considered in the realm of possibilities for
                           Anonymous
                           o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to
               reveal illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

               Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
               ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
               result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
               limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting in
               front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
               retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online
               assault of cartels.
                    o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
               journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some
               of these individuals are forced to collude with cartels.    
                         Taxi drivers are often victims of extortion or
               coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the identity of these
               individuals will not have a significant impact on cartel    
                             operations. Politicans have been accused of
               working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before,
               however there has yet to be any consequences from this.
                    o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent
               cartels are willing to go protect their operations.
                       o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                       o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
               community before, coercing computer science majors into
               working for them.
                       o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
               discovering hackers within Mexico.

                

               On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                 Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea
                 but there are several issues to address and fix here.

                 These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
                 discussion:

                      o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's
                 fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                      o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                 difference between stealing bank records from government
                 computers and overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                      o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
                 information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of
                 info is kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You
                 seem to be talking about identities, whose? If anything it's
                 dirty cops, politicians and businessmen who need to worry
                 about what anon is going to be saying. Think about why the
                 bloggers and media were killed in previous instances. Was it
                 because they revealed operational details, because they
                 acted as informants, because they exposed links with
                 officials or because they somehow sullied the cartel's
                 reputation? In short, what kind of information is damaging
                 to the cartels themselves?
                      o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon
                 can realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes
                 a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence
                 capacity except for the technical ability by a very small
                 number of its members to infiltrate certain networks and
                 databases and steal information. Now what kind of
                 information would a cartel keep on a network that is
                 connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else
                 could information be found? Government databases? Once we
                 know what kind of information is accessible, we can also
                 know more about the consequences of dissemination.
                      o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to
                 trace back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of
                 killings done by people who may not understand the
                 difference between an anon hacker and a blogger.

                 On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                   wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                   -------- Original Message --------

                    Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                       Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                       From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                   Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                         To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                   you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to
                   need a lot more work

                   You need to lay out:

                   a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger
                   section is unclear
                   b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is,
                   and therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
                   c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
                   anything
                   d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill
                   anyone who breaches their systems or exposes their
                   connections

                   I also just want to point out that we have reasonable
                   reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some
                   significant levels of sophistication in their online
                   presence, to include the use of cyber currencies and
                   significant IT capacity. There is no reason to assume that
                   Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
                   protected fashion.

                   Karen Hooper
                   Latin America Analyst
                   o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                   c: 512.750.7234
                   STRATFOR
                   www.stratfor.com
                   On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                   On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                   Link: themeData

                   Trigger

                   Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
                   Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?,
                   lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
                   statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including
                   a video released depicting...? a person talking? a voice?
                   words on a screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent
                   video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                   criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of
                   Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
                   journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker
                   group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member
                   otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
                   between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
                   unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly
                   different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a
                   conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have little
                   experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no
                   experience with the cartels. I do not believe for a second
                   that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                    

                   In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                   mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                   reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped member
                   this should be mentioned right up front. Cartels have a
                   member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back. Provide
                   enough details so we understand who this guy is and
                   why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims
                   of possessing revealing information on cartel members and
                   operations are true, cartels will likely respond with
                   violence against individuals revealed as opposing cartel
                   members huh? you mean Anonymous members?. It also is
                   likely that public disclosure of GOM officials who collude
                   with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving the
                   Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this
                   means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
                   effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against
                   Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will
                   continue their threats against any individual using online
                   media WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking
                   about bloggers here. against the cartels.

                    

                   The Battle Space

                   Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two
                   separate realities from each other. Anonymous operates
                   solely in sphere of the computer networks. Anonymous does
                   not experience geographical boundaries. All personalities
                   within Anonymous, exist solely in cyber space.  (That is
                   not entirely true. They are physical people tho live in
                   the real world. They have names and addresses - although
                   most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power
                   base consists of their technical capabilities in hacking.
                   Any information connected to the Internet is vulnerable to
                   exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's of individual
                   cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population could
                   be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
                   has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or
                   a big company with a website that brings in revenue, but
                   it does not really matter if you don't run operations on
                   the web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They
                   are also far less dependent on the web than the
                   jihadists.)

                   Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's
                   power base consists of the perceived anonymity that its
                   members believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by
                   operating through the internet. This gives an opening for
                   people disgruntled by anything and everything to practice
                   general dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity +
                   audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web of
                   people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any
                   sort of serious IT capability. 

                   The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has
                   been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

                   The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in
                   US and Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always
                   looking to maximize profits and expand. But they are
                   bricks and mortar commerce. Yes..... but they use the
                   internet to launder money and issue commands. We know that
                   Sinaloa does that from insight. There is no reason to
                   assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity. 
                   Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue and
                   escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
                   experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels
                   are always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel
                   violence. While battling each other, cartels still face
                   arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to
                   avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money,
                   cartels have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists
                   and online bloggers in order to cover details of their
                   operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for this
                   discussion. You need to focus on the possible
                   vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
                   have no cyber presence.

                    

                   Anonymous' Weapons

                   Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions
                   against criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous'
                   only ability to combat cartels lay in information
                   operations, mainly disseminating sensitive information on
                   cartels and propagating anti-cartel statements via social
                   media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean so far and
                   that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
                   cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance of
                   a targeted information operations campaign by technically
                   elite individuals can not be overlooked should not be
                   underestimated. Cartels view main stream media outlets and
                   social media blogs as such a threat to their operations,
                   that they have continued to target journalists and
                   bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was
                   placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the
                   body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
                   denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive
                   here, and it's not really addressing the subheading

                   As stated earlier, any information connected to the
                   internet risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample
                   reason to suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing
                   information they threaten to release. By releasing
                   identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
                   cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
                   individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
                   information is limited by what is available via the
                   Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
                   should always be considered a possibility of an attack.
                   However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the US
                   governments computer networks, information available to
                   Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy to
                   acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This isn't
                   clear at all

                    

                   Cartel's Defense

                               A counter response to the video? by the
                   cartels has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous'
                   claims of a kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los
                   Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by hackers
                   so... how has there not been a counter response? also this
                   undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is
                   soley internet based, and underlines the vulnerabilities
                   of associated members. How did they find teh Anonymous
                   member? The answer to that could very well give you some
                   indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
                   Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web
                   , the cartels will face a number of challenges which
                   rarely are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG
                   has whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in
                   cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good intel
                   indicating that) they are working on disrupting the
                   cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in any
                   region of the world. Personal information including
                   locations is only available if a hacker chooses to divulge
                   it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
                   figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous.
                   Cartels are only capable of dealing with their online
                   enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
                   employing hackers of their own under their payroll?
                   Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                               Cartels have been known to coerce the services
                   of Mexican citizens with a technical background.
                   Recruiting the help of computer science majors through
                   personal threats has been reported in the past where? What
                   cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels operate in the
                   world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they will
                   likely need the assistance of technical experts to help
                   combat any threat by computer hackers.  While identifying
                   bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is
                   unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
                   operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies
                   such as the FBi, with far more technical experience and
                   resources than cartels, struggle to find hackers through
                   investigations. A) How do you know they are not in Mexico?
                   (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume
                   that not all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                               In order to compete with an online foe,
                   cartels will likely continue counter tactics they are most
                   familiar with, brute force. Cartels are still capable of
                   their HUMINT operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would
                   we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged
                   connections to hacker communities will likely be targeted
                   and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and
                   public display of violence will likely continue to be used
                   to scare online media into submission i'm not really
                   seeing the online media-international hacking group
                   connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
                   inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
                   encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
                   cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will
                   remain to be seen until cartels are able to seek out and
                   capture members of the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could
                   call the collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off
                   any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

         --

         Sean Noonan

         Tactical Analyst

         Office: +1 512-279-9479

         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

         www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 22:29:35",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1273397_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1273433,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   As far as Aurora, I haven't followed it closely. Did they ever identify
   the attackers or number of attackers? I thought the target set was the
   only thing that led people to believe the Chinese government was
   responsible.

   2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
   responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating cyber
   intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case HUMINT is
   just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT capabilities does not
   indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers. NSA may have there own
   department for tracking hackers but it does not make it SIGINT.

   Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

   Wikipedia provides an indepth explanation on SIGINT . But in short, SIGINT
   is the capability in exploiting signals provided by communication devices,
   and what can be obtained by exploiting the signals. Combining computer
   network operations and SIGINT is innaccurate, because while SIGINT may be
   used with other intelligence disciplines in order to identify a hacker, it
   is not necessary and is no more related than any other intel discipline.
   SIGINT could help you identify a computer devices (not the operator)
   emitting a signal (wifi), and cryptanalysis, which is also separate from
   SIGINT but often used in conjunction, could help in providing methods to
   decrypt messages over a network, but SIGINT wouldn't obtain those
   messages.

   In order to exploit computer network operations, the operators involved
   are specifically trained in computer science disciplines and technologies
   tailored specifically for computer activity.

   NSA also is the primary agency for cryptanalysis. Because of technological
   demands of SIGINT and cryptanalysis, NSA has enormous resources in R&D, so
   I can see why the USG would move some CNO to NSA. But their SIGINT
   capabilities are not indicators of CNO capabilities.

   Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary labor for
   the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are discussing operations on
   the scale of causing physical damage to extremely sensitive equipment .
   Well, this is an example of a cyber attack that matters, whereeas
   Anonymous so far has not mattered.  You chose the most prolific example of
   a cyber attack (which the whole operation consisted mainly outside of the
   cyber attack itself). Anything that falls short of this doesn't matter?
   Define what matters. None of anonymous' attacks have physically damaged
   secret Iranian nuclear facilities, but I think you are downplaying too
   much the significance of exposing corporate secrets, halting businesses'
   revenues, and embarrassing State actors by defacing their websites.

   On 10/24/11 5:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     On 10/24/11 5:07 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already The USG
         arrested 10 Russian spies last year, are you willing to say foreign
         intel is not capable of conducting espionage undetected? No, of
         course not.  But I also would not argue that the SVR is so good to
         be immune to detection, as you are arguing with hackers.  I'm saying
         they are more detectable than you think.  There is no such thing as
         truly anonymous.  Everythign leaves a trail.  Will that trail in
         every instance lead to a single individual? no.  but it can lead to
         a place, an organization, and often, an individual. 

         2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
         responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating
         cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case
         HUMINT is just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT
         capabilities does not indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers.
         NSA may have there own department for tracking hackers but it does
         not make it SIGINT.

         Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

         The question is if the attack is high priority enough.  Many people
         assume there is no attribution because there is no response, but I
         don't think that is accurate.  Many people say this, because no
         attribution is one reason for no response.  Yes, they do, and if
         they think that is the primary reason for lack of response, then I
         think they are wrong. 

         3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new laptop
         and start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack involves much
         more than a recently bought laptop.  In the same way there is an
         attack cycle for a terrorist attack or crime, there is one for a
         cyber attack.  A very simple attack may be as hard to trace as a
         nearly-random mugging in the dark in a neighborhood with much more
         serious crime and no CCTV cameras.  A more complicated attack,
         however, involves pre-operational surveillance, developing exploits,
         developing programs and code, gaining access, exploiting that, and
         carrying out an attack.  Discovering exploits and writing code can
         be done entirely offline, out of sight of law enforcement or intel
         agencies. Pre-operational surveillance and gaining access (the point
         of the exploit you write offline) would fit in my example. The point
         is, if you don't link your computer to identifiable information, you
         remain anonymous. Just like people use certain methods to build
         IEDs, people use certain mehtods to design programs and code for
         cyber attacks.  Over time, those methods become identifiable and
         more and more attributable. This is, for example, how AURORA is
         linked back to the Chinese.  and very specific Chinese, I may add.
         Being connected or unconnected doesn't matter, eventually you have
         to use what you develop, or copy from someone, and all of those
         things can be analyzed.   And that takes time, giving more time for
         your exposure Exposure comes from network activity with the target,
         a lot of the pre-operational phase of an attack can occur without
         network activity. Look at everything that went into Stuxnet as a
         great example, that couldn't be done with one person with a new
         laptop. Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of
         necessary labor for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are
         discussing operations on the scale of causing physical damage to
         extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of a cyber
         attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not mattered.  
         All of this activity provides activity and evidence which helps for
         attribution.  Of course it is always possible to develop an attack,
         just like any other operation, that even the best law enforcement
         and national intelligence agencies have trouble or cannot
         attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that it's very difficult for
         someone to successfully use Anonymous as a cover and have NSA, GHQ,
         MID, Aman, etc, be unable to attribute it.  How do you know if NSA
         or GHQ is effective in identifying hackers?I don't, but I'm
         confident they are far better than you are allowing for.    They may
         not choose to cover it if it is small scale crime, however. 
         On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

           I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored
           cyber warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing
           that, since you can conduct a cyber attack without associating
           with a hacker group and still deny / cover actions on behalf of
           the State. An individual attacking US computer assets from China,
           may be working by himself or on behalf of the Chinese government,
           but unless the US has other intel on the Chinese government's
           cyber warfare activities in order to corroborate there is little
           capability to distinguish.

           It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
           operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets from
           SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual responsible
           for hacking State run servers. In the past, I have turned to
           SIGINT organizations for collections on computer related material,
           but this was due to the US being behind in cyber warfare, and not
           knowing where to assign responsibility. However, this has changed
           dramatically in the last couple of years.

           Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As an
           extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go to a
           Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the online
           activity to something revealing (accessing personal email
           accounts, tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop,
           etc..), and begin hacking government email accounts then never use
           the laptop again. Unless LEA could get an accurate description of
           my appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible security
           cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

           Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to
           these enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied to
           specific computer-related activities because of the difficulty in
           identifying individuals.

           I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown,
           would be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a common
           participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a State?
           Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that State
           agent organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter buddies, what
           signs could a LEA look for to distinguish?

           On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

             In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a
             bit)

             1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything
             actually harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't, but
             i'm very doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first real
             case where they could do some minor damage--to individual
             people, not not to an organization or anything that would come
             as a serious or strategic threat. 

             2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is actually
             pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as a cover,
             but that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could probably
             still be attributed if important enough to those agencies.  The
             recent attack on Sony actually brings this issue up- Whoever is
             calling themselves anonymous denies they did it.  And keep in
             mind how much they have claimed an publicized attacks in the
             past, even before they were carried out.  The attack on the
             Playstation Network was more sophisticated than anonymous' usual
             work (though potentially coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS
             attacks that distracted Sony's IT security).  But whoever did
             it, again, no real damage came of it.  Congress is holding
             hearings over data security, but this is no different than the
             OC groups stealing your credit card information.  LE will go
             after them, have some success, but the threat is not that
             large. 
             On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

               Link: themeData

               I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to
               have a broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no
               nothing, or almost nothing about what this group is and the
               threat it poses. Reviewing their list of attacks
               (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most
               of the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood
               of the internet . The interesting thing when it comes to their
               interactions with the cartels is the dubious role they play:
               at the same time they can be fighting crime by revealing
               cartel members/supporters, but they can also put lives in
               risk.

               However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
               Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can
               conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
               (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

               If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
               websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to
               know more about these guys. Who they are? What are they
               interested in? How they operate? Who they have targeted so
               far? How can I defend myself from them? In what countries are
               they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use them
               to achieve any particular goal?

               On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                 nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything
                 else can build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the
                 threat they pose to innocent people caught up in the terror
                 that is Mexico.  By focusing on journalists or taxi drivers
                 they show little understanding of the situation.  This has
                 long term implications in not just Mexico.  They don't
                 consider the consequences of their actions and they act
                 without understanding the environment.  It was the same when
                 they released information on the Sony Playstation network to
                 protest Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

                 On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                   Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of
                   discussing possible cartel responses, the focus is on what
                   type of threat Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video
                   released by Anonymous, threatens revealing personal
                   information on cartels as well as states a member had been
                   kidnapped. I could not find any sources outside of
                   Anonymous' claims of the individual being kidnapped.
                   According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and
                   Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual
                   posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the Operation
                   Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

                   Link: themeData
                   Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
                   distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government
                   websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with
                   a statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels,
                   including a video depicting a masked individual addressing
                   Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the most recent
                   video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                   criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing
                   identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
                   journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker
                   group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member
                   otherwise face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this
                   coming November 5th was mentioned as a day cartels could
                   expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of releasing a
                   kidnapped member are not met. The potential of conflict
                   between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents a
                   unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out
                   at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on
                   cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

                   What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                        o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical
                   security threat to Mexican cartels.
                        o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit
                   online media
                        o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico
                   to lash out at cartels

                   While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to
                   pose a threat
                        o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
                   identifiable information on cartel members
                        o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could
                   acquire on cartels
                        o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
                   communications, identifiable information on cartels
                   members have to be considered in the realm of
                   possibilities for
                               Anonymous
                               o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability
                   to reveal illicit online activity (child pornography
                   rings)

                   Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
                   ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
                   result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
                   limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting in
                   front of a computer, but this may blind them to any
                   possible retribution. They may not even know the impact of
                   any online assault of cartels.
                        o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
                   journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand
                   some of these individuals are forced to collude with
                   cartels.               Taxi drivers are often victims of
                   extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the
                   identity of these individuals will not have a significant
                   impact on cartel                   operations. Politicans
                   have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
                   Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be
                   any consequences from this.
                        o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent
                   cartels are willing to go protect their operations.
                           o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                           o    Cartels have reached out to the computer
                   science community before, coercing computer science majors
                   into working for them.
                           o    This provides the cartels with the
                   possibility of discovering hackers within Mexico.

                    

                   On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                     Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the
                     idea but there are several issues to address and fix
                     here.

                     These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with
                     the discussion:

                          o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why.
                     that's fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                          o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                     difference between stealing bank records from government
                     computers and overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                          o     There's no thought out process of what sort
                     of information could anon have on the cartels. What kind
                     of info is kept online and accessible to potential
                     attacks? You seem to be talking about identities, whose?
                     If anything it's dirty cops, politicians and businessmen
                     who need to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
                     Think about why the bloggers and media were killed in
                     previous instances. Was it because they revealed
                     operational details, because they acted as informants,
                     because they exposed links with officials or because
                     they somehow sullied the cartel's reputation? In short,
                     what kind of information is damaging to the cartels
                     themselves?
                          o     Once you identify this info - think about if
                     anon can realistically access it and disseminate it so
                     it causes a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any
                     intelligence capacity except for the technical ability
                     by a very small number of its members to infiltrate
                     certain networks and databases and steal information.
                     Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on a
                     network that is connected to the internet (aka no
                     intranet)? Where else could information be found?
                     Government databases? Once we know what kind of
                     information is accessible, we can also know more about
                     the consequences of dissemination.
                          o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel?
                     Sufficient to trace back attacks? If it's not, there
                     risks to be a lot of killings done by people who may not
                     understand the difference between an anon hacker and a
                     blogger.

                     On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                       wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                       -------- Original Message --------

                        Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                           Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                           From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                       Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                             To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                       you've got some of the issues here, but this is going
                       to need a lot more work

                       You need to lay out:

                       a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your
                       trigger section is unclear
                       b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence
                       is, and therefore their vulnerabilities and
                       capabilities
                       c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
                       anything
                       d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to
                       kill anyone who breaches their systems or exposes
                       their connections

                       I also just want to point out that we have reasonable
                       reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very least has
                       some significant levels of sophistication in their
                       online presence, to include the use of cyber
                       currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no
                       reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
                       business online, in a protected fashion.

                       Karen Hooper
                       Latin America Analyst
                       o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                       c: 512.750.7234
                       STRATFOR
                       www.stratfor.com
                       On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                       On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                       Link: themeData

                       Trigger

                       Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy,
                       hackers. Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group
                       famous for...?, lashed out at drug cartels via the
                       Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
                       criminal cartels, including a video released
                       depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a
                       screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent video
                       release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                       criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities
                       of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
                       politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal
                       cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a
                       fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences.
                       The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal
                       cartels and hackers, presents an unprecedented war
                       front for the cartels. The vastly different operations
                       of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
                       Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in
                       handling. i believe that Anonymous has no experience
                       with the cartels. I do not believe for a second that
                       the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                        

                       In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                       mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                       reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped
                       member this should be mentioned right up front.
                       Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit
                       back. Provide enough details so we understand who this
                       guy is and why/how he was abducted. are not met. If
                       Anonymous' claims of possessing revealing information
                       on cartel members and operations are true, cartels
                       will likely respond with violence against individuals
                       revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you mean
                       Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public
                       disclosure of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will
                       force the GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous
                       threat complexity i don't understand what this means.
                       You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
                       effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
                       against Anonymous remains unanswered . However,
                       cartels will continue their threats against any
                       individual using online media WC.... you mean tools?
                       or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers here.
                       against the cartels.

                        

                       The Battle Space

                       Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two
                       separate realities from each other. Anonymous operates
                       solely in sphere of the computer networks. Anonymous
                       does not experience geographical boundaries. All
                       personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in cyber
                       space.  (That is not entirely true. They are physical
                       people tho live in the real world. They have names and
                       addresses - although most of them are likely outside
                       of MX.)  Anonymous' power base consists of their
                       technical capabilities in hacking. Any information
                       connected to the Internet is vulnerable to exploits by
                       hackers. (Identifying the pc's of individual cartel
                       members in the midst of Mexico's population could be
                       quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
                       has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
                       Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings
                       in revenue, but it does not really matter if you don't
                       run operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money
                       via e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on
                       the web than the jihadists.)

                       Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's
                       power base consists of the perceived anonymity that
                       its members believe themselves to have, real or
                       otherwise, by operating through the internet. This
                       gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
                       and everything to practice general dickery. As the
                       popular meme goes, anonymity + audience = troll. Only
                       a fraction of the large web of people who identify
                       themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
                       capability. 

                       The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far
                       has been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement
                       Agencies.

                       The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets
                       in US and Mexican cities. They are run as a business,
                       always looking to maximize profits and expand. But
                       they are bricks and mortar commerce. Yes..... but they
                       use the internet to launder money and issue commands.
                       We know that Sinaloa does that from insight. There is
                       no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a
                       similar capacity.  Their power base is built by large
                       amounts of revenue and escalating brutal violence.
                       Cartels like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing
                       different types of threats. Cartels are always
                       suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence.
                       While battling each other, cartels still face arrests
                       by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid
                       any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
                       have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and
                       online bloggers in order to cover details of their
                       operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for
                       this discussion. You need to focus on the possible
                       vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
                       have no cyber presence.

                        

                       Anonymous' Weapons

                       Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions
                       against criminal cartels has yet to be seen.
                       Anonymous' only ability to combat cartels lay in
                       information operations, mainly disseminating sensitive
                       information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel
                       statements via social media and defaced websites in
                       Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As
                       Anonymous admitted in their video to cartels, they
                       cannot fight with guns.  The significance of a
                       targeted information operations campaign by
                       technically elite individuals can not be overlooked
                       should not be underestimated. Cartels view main stream
                       media outlets and social media blogs as such a threat
                       to their operations, that they have continued to
                       target journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message
                       signed by Los Zetas was placed with a dead female
                       body  more relevantly, on the body of a blogger. The
                       message threatened any users who denounce cartels on
                       blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's
                       not really addressing the subheading

                       As stated earlier, any information connected to the
                       internet risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample
                       reason to suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing
                       information they threaten to release. By releasing
                       identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
                       cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
                       individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate
                       sensitive information is limited by what is available
                       via the Internet. Government computers connected to
                       the Internet should always be considered a possibility
                       of an attack. However, as with the compartmentalized
                       nature of the US governments computer networks,
                       information available to Mexico's intelligence
                       collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you
                       trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

                        

                       Cartel's Defense

                                   A counter response to the video? by the
                       cartels has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous'
                       claims of a kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los
                       Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by
                       hackers so... how has there not been a counter
                       response? also this undermines your statements above
                       about how Anonymous is soley internet based, and
                       underlines the vulnerabilities of associated members.
                       How did they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to
                       that could very well give you some indication to the
                       technical ability of the cartels . As Anonymous exists
                       in abstract reality of the world wide web , the
                       cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely
                       are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has
                       whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in
                       cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good intel
                       indicating that) they are working on disrupting the
                       cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in
                       any region of the world. Personal information
                       including locations is only available if a hacker
                       chooses to divulge it or if the subject of the attack
                       is savvy enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only
                       work for Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of
                       dealing with their online enemy, if they can
                       physically reach out to them. Or start employing
                       hackers of their own under their payroll? Stranger
                       things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                                   Cartels have been known to coerce the
                       services of Mexican citizens with a technical
                       background. Recruiting the help of computer science
                       majors through personal threats has been reported in
                       the past where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since
                       cartels operate in the world of urban violence and
                       drug trafficking, they will likely need the assistance
                       of technical experts to help combat any threat by
                       computer hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside
                       of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is unlikely
                       cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
                       operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement
                       agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
                       experience and resources than cartels, struggle to
                       find hackers through investigations. A) How do you
                       know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they
                       kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not all
                       hackers are equally difficult to track down

                                   In order to compete with an online foe,
                       cartels will likely continue counter tactics they are
                       most familiar with, brute force. Cartels are still
                       capable of their HUMINT operations within Mexico
                       \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?. 
                       Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
                       communities will likely be targeted and interrogated
                       by cartel members.  Narco banners and public display
                       of violence will likely continue to be used to scare
                       online media into submission i'm not really seeing the
                       online media-international hacking group connection
                       here.  The cruel manners in which cartels inflict
                       harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
                       encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
                       cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous
                       will remain to be seen until cartels are able to seek
                       out and capture members of the hacker group.. Or the
                       Narcos could call the collective bluff and simply go
                       on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can
                       inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

             --

             Sean Noonan

             Tactical Analyst

             Office: +1 512-279-9479

             Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

             Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

             www.stratfor.com

         --

         Sean Noonan

         Tactical Analyst

         Office: +1 512-279-9479

         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

         www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-25 02:33:59",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1273433_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1276410,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1276410_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1277592,"Re: [CT] Fwd: FW: [Customer Service/Technical Issues] Atricles	onWikileaks
","   ill handle this

   On 12/8/2010 10:14 AM, Korena Zucha wrote:

     He is a paid member under a group account.

     On 12/8/2010 10:08 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

       I can easily send out our last 2 or 3 articles to this guy. Who do I
       check with to see if he's a subscriber

       Writers, please see discussion below

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       From: Marko Papic <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
       Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 10:06:56 -0600
       To: CT AOR<ct@stratfor.com>
       Cc: Sean Noonan<sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
       Subject: Re: [CT] Fwd: FW: [Customer Service/Technical Issues]
       Atricles on Wikileaks
       Definitely.

       I would send a request to writers to do this with ALL our wikileak
       pieces and send it to our U.S. gov't clients directly as a package.

       Show them that we care that the Administration is being stupid.

       On 12/8/10 10:04 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         if this guy is a paying customer we could reply and quickly edit out
         the word wikileaks with a find/replace in Word and send him our last
         two articles on it.  Might as well help a brother out. 
         On 12/8/10 10:02 AM, Marko Papic wrote:

           Speaking of closing the barn door after the horses have already
           run away...

           What insane overkill.

           -------- Original Message --------

            Subject: FW: [Customer Service/Technical Issues] Atricles on      
                     Wikileaks                                                
               Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:30:43 -0600                           
               From: Service <service@stratfor.com>                           
           Reply-To: Responses List <responses@stratfor.com>, Analyst List    
                     <analysts@stratfor.com>                                  
                 To: <responses@stratfor.com>                                 

 Ryan Sims
 STRATFOR
 Global Intelligence
 T: 512-744-4087
 F: 512-744-0239
 ryan.sims@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com


 -----Original Message-----
 From: noreply@stratfor.com [mailto:noreply@stratfor.com] On Behalf Of
 vickie.reschke@conus.army.mil
 Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 9:15 AM
 To: service@stratfor.com
 Subject: [Customer Service/Technical Issues] Atricles on Wikileaks

 vickie.reschke sent a message using the contact form at
 https://www.stratfor.com/contact.

 The US Army is restricted from viewing any articles with the word Wikileaks

 contained within.
 Is there any way you can replace the word from the article with something
 \"Assange\" or something else if the article doesn't actually reveal the
 classified content?
 We don't want to cause a security compromise on our system, but the fallout

 from the divulged data is a valid concern.
 In the mean time, is it possible to send me the article on \"WikiLeaks and
 U.S. Critical Infrastructure\" your site published yesterday?






         --

         Sean Noonan

         Tactical Analyst

         Office: +1 512-279-9479

         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

         www.stratfor.com

       --

       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

       Marko Papic

       Geopol Analyst - Eurasia

       STRATFOR

       700 Lavaca Street - 900

       Austin, Texas

       78701 USA

       P: + 1-512-744-4094

       marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-08 17:17:13",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1277592_re-ct-fwd-fw-customer-service-technical-issues-atricles.html","mike.marchio@stratfor.com","","writers@stratfor.com,ct@stratfor.com,zucha@stratfor.com,wright@stratfor.com,sean.noonan@stratfor.com",""
1279275,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored cyber
   warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing that, since you
   can conduct a cyber attack without associating with a hacker group and
   still deny / cover actions on behalf of the State. An individual attacking
   US computer assets from China, may be working by himself or on behalf of
   the Chinese government, but unless the US has other intel on the Chinese
   government's cyber warfare activities in order to corroborate there is
   little capability to distinguish.

   It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network operations do
   not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets from SIGINT would not
   directly help you track an individual responsible for hacking State run
   servers. In the past, I have turned to SIGINT organizations for
   collections on computer related material, but this was due to the US being
   behind in cyber warfare, and not knowing where to assign responsibility.
   However, this has changed dramatically in the last couple of years.

   Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As an extreme
   scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go to a Starbucks with
   free public wifi, and never attribute the online activity to something
   revealing (accessing personal email accounts, tweeting, entering personal
   information to the laptop, etc..), and begin hacking government email
   accounts then never use the laptop again. Unless LEA could get an accurate
   description of my appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible security
   cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

   Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to these
   enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied to specific
   computer-related activities because of the difficulty in identifying
   individuals.

   I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown, would be
   the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a common participant in
   \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a State? Anonymous has denounced
   state governments before, if that State agent organizes an attack amongst
   his IRC / Twitter buddies, what signs could a LEA look for to distinguish?

   On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a bit)

     1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything actually
     harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't, but i'm very
     doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first real case where they
     could do some minor damage--to individual people, not not to an
     organization or anything that would come as a serious or strategic
     threat. 

     2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is actually pretty
     good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as a cover, but that would be
     pretty easy to bungle, and could probably still be attributed if
     important enough to those agencies.  The recent attack on Sony actually
     brings this issue up- Whoever is calling themselves anonymous denies
     they did it.  And keep in mind how much they have claimed an publicized
     attacks in the past, even before they were carried out.  The attack on
     the Playstation Network was more sophisticated than anonymous' usual
     work (though potentially coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that
     distracted Sony's IT security).  But whoever did it, again, no real
     damage came of it.  Congress is holding hearings over data security, but
     this is no different than the OC groups stealing your credit card
     information.  LE will go after them, have some success, but the threat
     is not that large. 
     On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

       Link: themeData

       I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to have a
       broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no nothing, or
       almost nothing about what this group is and the threat it poses.
       Reviewing their list of attacks
       (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most of the
       cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood of the internet
       . The interesting thing when it comes to their interactions with the
       cartels is the dubious role they play: at the same time they can be
       fighting crime by revealing cartel members/supporters, but they can
       also put lives in risk.

       However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by Anonymous.
       The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can conduct a cyber
       attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
       (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

       If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government websites,
       or if I am just a internet user, I would like to know more about these
       guys. Who they are? What are they interested in? How they operate? Who
       they have targeted so far? How can I defend myself from them? In what
       countries are they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use
       them to achieve any particular goal?

       On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

         nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else can
         build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they pose to
         innocent people caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing
         on journalists or taxi drivers they show little understanding of the
         situation.  This has long term implications in not just Mexico. 
         They don't consider the consequences of their actions and they act
         without understanding the environment.  It was the same when they
         released information on the Sony Playstation network to protest
         Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

         On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

           Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
           possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
           Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by Anonymous,
           threatens revealing personal information on cartels as well as
           states a member had been kidnapped. I could not find any sources
           outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being kidnapped.
           According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous
           Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual posting flyers in
           Veracruz as part of the Operation Paperstorm protest, although
           that is speculation.

           Link: themeData
           Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
           denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed
           out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
           Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked
           individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the
           most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
           the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing
           identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists
           who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los
           Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
           consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
           was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
           their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
           potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and
           hackers, presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels
           lashing out at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting
           on cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

           What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
           threat to Mexican cartels.
                o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
           media
                o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash
           out at cartels

           While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
           threat
                o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
           identifiable information on cartel members
                o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire
           on cartels
                o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
           communications, identifiable information on cartels members have
           to be considered in the realm of possibilities for
                       Anonymous
                       o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
           illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

           Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
           ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result,
           their understanding of cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous
           may act with confidence when sitting in front of a computer, but
           this may blind them to any possible retribution. They may not even
           know the impact of any online assault of cartels.
                o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists
           will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these
           individuals are forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi
           drivers are often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
           halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals will not
           have a significant impact on cartel                   operations.
           Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
           Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any
           consequences from this.
                o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels
           are willing to go protect their operations.
                   o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                   o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
           community before, coercing computer science majors into working
           for them.
                   o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
           discovering hackers within Mexico.

            

           On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

             Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but
             there are several issues to address and fix here.

             These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
             discussion:

                  o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine
             but we can't gloss over that fact
                  o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
             between stealing bank records from government computers and
             overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                  o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
             information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
             kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
             talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
             politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
             going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
             killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
             operational details, because they acted as informants, because
             they exposed links with officials or because they somehow
             sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
             information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                  o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
             realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a
             measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity
             except for the technical ability by a very small number of its
             members to infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal
             information. Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on
             a network that is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)?
             Where else could information be found? Government databases?
             Once we know what kind of information is accessible, we can also
             know more about the consequences of dissemination.
                  o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to
             trace back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of
             killings done by people who may not understand the difference
             between an anon hacker and a blogger.

             On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

               wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

               -------- Original Message --------

                Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                   Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                   From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
               Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                     To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

               you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need
               a lot more work

               You need to lay out:

               a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger
               section is unclear
               b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
               therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
               c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
               anything
               d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill
               anyone who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

               I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
               insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant
               levels of sophistication in their online presence, to include
               the use of cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
               is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
               business online, in a protected fashion.

               Karen Hooper
               Latin America Analyst
               o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
               c: 512.750.7234
               STRATFOR
               www.stratfor.com
               On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

               On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

               Link: themeData

               Trigger

               Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
               Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?,
               lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
               denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video
               released depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a
               screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent video release,
               Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels.
               Threats such as releasing identities of Mexican? American?
               taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists who collude
               with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas
               release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences.
               The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels
               and hackers, presents an unprecedented war front for the
               cartels. The vastly different operations of Anonymous and Los
               Zetas leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have
               little experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no
               experience with the cartels. I do not believe for a second
               that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                

               In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
               mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
               their demands of releasing a kidnapped member this should be
               mentioned right up front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is
               threatening to hit back. Provide enough details so we
               understand who this guy is and why/how he was abducted. are
               not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing revealing
               information on cartel members and operations are true, cartels
               will likely respond with violence against individuals revealed
               as opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous members?.
               It also is likely that public disclosure of GOM officials who
               collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving
               the Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this
               means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
               effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against
               Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will continue
               their threats against any individual using online media WC....
               you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers
               here. against the cartels.

                

               The Battle Space

               Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
               realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere
               of the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience
               geographical boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
               exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They
               are physical people tho live in the real world. They have
               names and addresses - although most of them are likely outside
               of MX.)  Anonymous' power base consists of their technical
               capabilities in hacking. Any information connected to the
               Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying
               the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's
               population could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of
               what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
               Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in
               revenue, but it does not really matter if you don't run
               operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money via
               e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on the web than
               the jihadists.)

               Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power
               base consists of the perceived anonymity that its members
               believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating
               through the internet. This gives an opening for people
               disgruntled by anything and everything to practice general
               dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity + audience =
               troll. Only a fraction of the large web of people who identify
               themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
               capability. 

               The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has
               been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

               The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US
               and Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking
               to maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
               commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
               and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from
               insight. There is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't
               have a similar capacity.  Their power base is built by large
               amounts of revenue and escalating brutal violence. Cartels
               like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing different types of
               threats. Cartels are always suffering at the hands of cartel
               on cartel violence. While battling each other, cartels still
               face arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to
               avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
               have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
               bloggers in order to cover details of their operations. ok...
               but that's kind of a red herrng for this discussion. You need
               to focus on the possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't
               just assume they have no cyber presence.

                

               Anonymous' Weapons

               Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
               criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability
               to combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly
               disseminating sensitive information on cartels and propagating
               anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced websites
               in Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous
               admitted in their video to cartels, they cannot fight with
               guns.  The significance of a targeted information operations
               campaign by technically elite individuals can not be
               overlooked should not be underestimated. Cartels view main
               stream media outlets and social media blogs as such a threat
               to their operations, that they have continued to target
               journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los
               Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on
               the body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
               denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive
               here, and it's not really addressing the subheading

               As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet
               risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to
               suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing information they
               threaten to release. By releasing identities of individuals
               cooperating with Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life
               of those individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate
               sensitive information is limited by what is available via the
               Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
               should always be considered a possibility of an attack.
               However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the US
               governments computer networks, information available to
               Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy to acquire. 
               what are you trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

                

               Cartel's Defense

                           A counter response to the video? by the cartels
               has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a
               kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun
               addressing the threat posed by hackers so... how has there not
               been a counter response? also this undermines your statements
               above about how Anonymous is soley internet based, and
               underlines the vulnerabilities of associated members. How did
               they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that could very
               well give you some indication to the technical ability of the
               cartels . As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
               wide web , the cartels will face a number of challenges which
               rarely are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has
               whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You
               can assume (and we have good intel indicating that) they are
               working on disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening
               cartels, can operate in any region of the world. Personal
               information including locations is only available if a hacker
               chooses to divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy
               enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only work for
               Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
               online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or
               start employing hackers of their own under their payroll?
               Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                           Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
               Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the
               help of computer science majors through personal threats has
               been reported in the past where? What cartels? reported
               where?.  Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence
               and drug trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of
               technical experts to help combat any threat by computer
               hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been
               demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable of
               identifying any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
               enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
               experience and resources than cartels, struggle to find
               hackers through investigations. A) How do you know they are
               not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm
               goign to assume that not all hackers are equally difficult to
               track down

                           In order to compete with an online foe, cartels
               will likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar
               with, brute force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT
               operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they
               wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
               communities will likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel
               members.  Narco banners and public display of violence will
               likely continue to be used to scare online media into
               submission i'm not really seeing the online
               media-international hacking group connection here.  The cruel
               manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer
               hackers have unlikely encountered before in their life.
               Whether the fear of cartel violence softens the confidence of
               Anonymous will remain to be seen until cartels are able to
               seek out and capture members of the hacker group.. Or the
               Narcos could call the collective bluff and simply go on and
               shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:38:17",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1279275_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1288266,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Brown

   On 10/24/11 11:50 AM, Morgan Kauffman wrote:

     If you're going to cover the vigilante/robin-hood aspect, I found this
     in today's sweeps: 
     http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/10/anonymous-takes-down-darknet-child-porn-site-on-tor-network.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
     and 
     http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2395175,00.asp#fbid=KvMufY_Mq3a

     They've got a sub-group that tries to hunt down child-abuse sites and
     users - last week they published a list of 1500 names of visitors to one
     site, in addition to performing a couple of DDoS attacks to the server.

     On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

       Link: themeData

       I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to have a
       broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no nothing, or
       almost nothing about what this group is and the threat it poses.
       Reviewing their list of attacks
       (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most of the
       cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood of the internet
       . The interesting thing when it comes to their interactions with the
       cartels is the dubious role they play: at the same time they can be
       fighting crime by revealing cartel members/supporters, but they can
       also put lives in risk.

       However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by Anonymous.
       The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can conduct a cyber
       attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
       (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

       If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government websites,
       or if I am just a internet user, I would like to know more about these
       guys. Who they are? What are they interested in? How they operate? Who
       they have targeted so far? How can I defend myself from them? In what
       countries are they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use
       them to achieve any particular goal?

       On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

         nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else can
         build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they pose to
         innocent people caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing
         on journalists or taxi drivers they show little understanding of the
         situation.  This has long term implications in not just Mexico. 
         They don't consider the consequences of their actions and they act
         without understanding the environment.  It was the same when they
         released information on the Sony Playstation network to protest
         Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

         On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

           Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
           possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
           Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by Anonymous,
           threatens revealing personal information on cartels as well as
           states a member had been kidnapped. I could not find any sources
           outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being kidnapped.
           According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous
           Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual posting flyers in
           Veracruz as part of the Operation Paperstorm protest, although
           that is speculation.

           Link: themeData
           Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
           denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed
           out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
           Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked
           individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the
           most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
           the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing
           identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists
           who collude with criminal cartels. No mention of banks that accept
           their laundered money? That is when they would be a threat to
           their bottom line. They can always buy cabbies, cops, politicos
           and journos but tracing banks.  The hacker group demanded Los
           Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
           consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
           was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
           their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
           potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and
           hackers, presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels
           lashing out at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting
           on cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

           What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
           threat to Mexican cartels.
                o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
           media
                o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash
           out at cartels

           While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
           threat
                o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
           identifiable information on cartel members
                o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire
           on cartels
                o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
           communications, identifiable information on cartels members have
           to be considered in the realm of possibilities for
                       Anonymous
                       o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
           illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

           Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
           ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result,
           their understanding of cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous
           may act with confidence when sitting in front of a computer, but
           this may blind them to any possible retribution. They may not even
           know the impact of any online assault of cartels.
                o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists
           will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these
           individuals are forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi
           drivers are often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
           halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals will not
           have a significant impact on cartel                   operations.
           Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
           Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any
           consequences from this.
                o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels
           are willing to go protect their operations.
                   o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                   o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
           community before, coercing computer science majors into working
           for them.
                   o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
           discovering hackers within Mexico.

            

           On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

             Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but
             there are several issues to address and fix here.

             These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
             discussion:

                  o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine
             but we can't gloss over that fact
                  o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
             between stealing bank records from government computers and
             overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                  o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
             information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
             kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
             talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
             politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
             going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
             killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
             operational details, because they acted as informants, because
             they exposed links with officials or because they somehow
             sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
             information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                  o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
             realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a
             measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity
             except for the technical ability by a very small number of its
             members to infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal
             information. Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on
             a network that is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)?
             Where else could information be found? Government databases?
             Once we know what kind of information is accessible, we can also
             know more about the consequences of dissemination.
                  o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to
             trace back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of
             killings done by people who may not understand the difference
             between an anon hacker and a blogger.

             On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

               wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

               -------- Original Message --------

                Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                   Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                   From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
               Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                     To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

               you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need
               a lot more work

               You need to lay out:

               a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger
               section is unclear
               b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
               therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
               c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
               anything
               d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill
               anyone who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

               I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
               insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant
               levels of sophistication in their online presence, to include
               the use of cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
               is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
               business online, in a protected fashion.

               Karen Hooper
               Latin America Analyst
               o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
               c: 512.750.7234
               STRATFOR
               www.stratfor.com
               On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

               On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

               Link: themeData

               Trigger

               Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
               Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?,
               lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
               denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video
               released depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a
               screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent video release,
               Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels.
               Threats such as releasing identities of Mexican? American?
               taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists who collude
               with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas
               release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences.
               The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels
               and hackers, presents an unprecedented war front for the
               cartels. The vastly different operations of Anonymous and Los
               Zetas leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have
               little experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no
               experience with the cartels. I do not believe for a second
               that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                

               In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
               mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
               their demands of releasing a kidnapped member this should be
               mentioned right up front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is
               threatening to hit back. Provide enough details so we
               understand who this guy is and why/how he was abducted. are
               not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing revealing
               information on cartel members and operations are true, cartels
               will likely respond with violence against individuals revealed
               as opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous members?.
               It also is likely that public disclosure of GOM officials who
               collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving
               the Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this
               means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
               effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against
               Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will continue
               their threats against any individual using online media WC....
               you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers
               here. against the cartels.

                

               The Battle Space

               Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
               realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere
               of the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience
               geographical boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
               exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They
               are physical people tho live in the real world. They have
               names and addresses - although most of them are likely outside
               of MX.)  Anonymous' power base consists of their technical
               capabilities in hacking. Any information connected to the
               Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying
               the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's
               population could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of
               what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
               Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in
               revenue, but it does not really matter if you don't run
               operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money via
               e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on the web than
               the jihadists.)

               Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power
               base consists of the perceived anonymity that its members
               believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating
               through the internet. This gives an opening for people
               disgruntled by anything and everything to practice general
               dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity + audience =
               troll. Only a fraction of the large web of people who identify
               themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
               capability. 

               The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has
               been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

               The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US
               and Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking
               to maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
               commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
               and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from
               insight. There is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't
               have a similar capacity.  Their power base is built by large
               amounts of revenue and escalating brutal violence. Cartels
               like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing different types of
               threats. Cartels are always suffering at the hands of cartel
               on cartel violence. While battling each other, cartels still
               face arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to
               avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
               have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
               bloggers in order to cover details of their operations. ok...
               but that's kind of a red herrng for this discussion. You need
               to focus on the possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't
               just assume they have no cyber presence.

                

               Anonymous' Weapons

               Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
               criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability
               to combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly
               disseminating sensitive information on cartels and propagating
               anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced websites
               in Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous
               admitted in their video to cartels, they cannot fight with
               guns.  The significance of a targeted information operations
               campaign by technically elite individuals can not be
               overlooked should not be underestimated. Cartels view main
               stream media outlets and social media blogs as such a threat
               to their operations, that they have continued to target
               journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los
               Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on
               the body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
               denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive
               here, and it's not really addressing the subheading

               As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet
               risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to
               suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing information they
               threaten to release. By releasing identities of individuals
               cooperating with Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life
               of those individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate
               sensitive information is limited by what is available via the
               Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
               should always be considered a possibility of an attack.
               However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the US
               governments computer networks, information available to
               Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy to acquire. 
               what are you trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

                

               Cartel's Defense

                           A counter response to the video? by the cartels
               has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a
               kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun
               addressing the threat posed by hackers so... how has there not
               been a counter response? also this undermines your statements
               above about how Anonymous is soley internet based, and
               underlines the vulnerabilities of associated members. How did
               they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that could very
               well give you some indication to the technical ability of the
               cartels . As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
               wide web , the cartels will face a number of challenges which
               rarely are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has
               whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You
               can assume (and we have good intel indicating that) they are
               working on disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening
               cartels, can operate in any region of the world. Personal
               information including locations is only available if a hacker
               chooses to divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy
               enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only work for
               Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
               online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or
               start employing hackers of their own under their payroll?
               Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                           Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
               Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the
               help of computer science majors through personal threats has
               been reported in the past where? What cartels? reported
               where?.  Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence
               and drug trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of
               technical experts to help combat any threat by computer
               hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been
               demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable of
               identifying any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
               enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
               experience and resources than cartels, struggle to find
               hackers through investigations. A) How do you know they are
               not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm
               goign to assume that not all hackers are equally difficult to
               track down

                           In order to compete with an online foe, cartels
               will likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar
               with, brute force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT
               operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they
               wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
               communities will likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel
               members.  Narco banners and public display of violence will
               likely continue to be used to scare online media into
               submission i'm not really seeing the online
               media-international hacking group connection here.  The cruel
               manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer
               hackers have unlikely encountered before in their life.
               Whether the fear of cartel violence softens the confidence of
               Anonymous will remain to be seen until cartels are able to
               seek out and capture members of the hacker group.. Or the
               Narcos could call the collective bluff and simply go on and
               shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

 --
 Sincerely,

 Marko Primorac
 Tactical Analyst
 marko.primorac@stratfor.com
 Tel: +1 512.744.4300
 Cell: +1 717.557.8480
","2011-10-24 18:59:47",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1288266_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","marko.primorac@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1288283,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   I agree. I haven't seen any defining attributes of Anonymous as a group.
   They may not even know the identities of each other. There are several
   facebook / twitter Anonymous pages, which seem to be run by different
   individuals.

   What about defining Anonymous in terms of the individual? Instead of
   saying Anonymous attacking cartels, Individuals acting under the Anonymous
   name....

   -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents have access to,
   and doubt they have such information that provides any sort of existential
   threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 
   This is a problem with the threat assessment. Technically, anything cartel
   related (emails, online transactions, Mexican LEA information, etc.) would
   be available to a hacker, but we don't know if they have had access to
   this information, or if the hackers interested in harming cartels are
   capable. It's not even confirmed hackers have revealing information on
   cartel supporters which the video claims.

   On 10/24/11 1:11 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     Somehow we have to stop referring to 'anonymous' as a monolith.  They
     are a bunch of different people that essentially get together in an
     online-form of a mob to carry out some action. I'm not sure how to do
     this in writing consistently.  But let's start with shit like 'people
     joining Anonymous chatrooms and claiming to be part of the movement' or
     something like that. 

     Comments in green below.  This is coming together nicely. 

     On 10/24/11 11:19 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of
       these in the US?
        What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
       I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
       whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
       because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
       revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of
       understanding of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is
       expendable to cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of
       coercion.

       Anonymous does not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
       cartels.  mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of
       el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication
       as a tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable
       intelligence, the government will use it against the cartels. That's a
       physical threat, if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify
       that Anonymous can not directly effect physical security. Any impact
       to the cartel in revealing information will be from actions of rival
       cartels or the GoM. They may release information on a given politician
       being linked to the cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the
       politician will feel an impact (Just because Anonymous says there is a
       link, doesn't make it true). It would be up to others to take action. 
       I think the way you have it worded in the above sentence is good. 
       Follow with a sentence explaining the rest of it, because readers will
       have the same question Karen did.  Something like 'Rather, the threat
       to cartels would come in what information anonymous could expose that
       is useful to their enemies'

       Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online
       activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to
       conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't know how
       much, but we do know they will have some points of operational
       vulnerability I have heard of cartels doing business online, but don't
       have specific examples which could be used in assessing their
       vulnerability online.

       by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired,
       arrested or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I
       should say, there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out
       politicians as colluding.
       On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

         Karen Hooper
         Latin America Analyst
         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
         c: 512.750.7234
         STRATFOR
         www.stratfor.com
         On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
         Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
         possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
         Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by people using
         the banner of Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on
         cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
         find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual
         being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico
         and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual
         posting flyers ['critical of cartels'?] in Veracruz as part of the
         Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation. [this is
         good and will be enough information to go with, though you'll need a
         quick explanation of what 'operation paperstorm' is.  Adding
         something in the explaining the flyers will work]

         Link: themeData
         Anonymous, a decentralized hacker collective  famous for distributed
         denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government and corporate
         websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
         statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video
         depicting a masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on
         October 10? With the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold
         threats towards the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as
         releasing identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
         journalists who collude with criminal cartels do they specify
         whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of these in the US?
          What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
         group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
         face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
         was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
         their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
         potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
         presents a unique threat towards TCOs [If TCO= transnational
         criminal organization, it's not really unique.  Many such
         organizations do their crimes online, and have been hacked in
         response--like the nigerian princess scams. I think you should just
         say it's a unique threat to DTOs] . We know of cartels lashing out
         at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels
         dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

         What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
              o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
         threat to Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a
         gun to the head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for
         the using publication as a tool to force government action. If you
         reveal actionable intelligence, the government will use it against
         the cartels. That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
              o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
         media
              o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out
         at cartels

         While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
         threat, if it had access to certain types of information:

                 -The threat is in the information they can expose that may
     be of use to any cartel enemies.  That could be to the government or
     other cartels or even local citizens (the last one may be a stretch, but
     i could imagine someone discrediting cartel members in the eyes of the
     public).

              o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims tocut possess
         identifiable information on cartel members 
              o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
         cartels [cut this part here, and make the point at the end of this
         section/paragraph]
              o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
         identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in
         the realm of possibilities for
                     Anonymous
                     o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
         illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels
         are known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We
         don't know how much, but we do know they will have some points of
         operational vulnerability

        -They claim to have information on those that collude with cartels 
     (use the stuff you have above].  Releasing such information could hurt
     cartels' support networks, but most of these people are also easily
     replaceable. 
                 -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents
     have access to, and doubt they have such information that provides any
     sort of existential threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 

         Most Anonymous hackers are likely far removed from the ultra-violent
         world of drug trafficking in Mexico, but it's quite possible that
         some of its members in this campaign are in Mexico and opposed to
         the violence [or something like that.  my limited understanding is
         there are still activist crusader-types in Mexico, yeah?  it seems
         very possible those with a bit of time or computer skills could have
         joined up with anonymous] . As a result, their understanding of
         cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous members in other
         countries may act with confidence when sitting in front of a
         computer, but this may blind them to any possible retribution. They
         may not even know the impact of any online assault of cartels.  [the
         part below and above is written rather normatively.  We need to take
         that out.  just state the facts]
              o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists
         will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these
         individuals are forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi
         drivers are often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
         halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals will not have
         a significant impact on cartel                   operations.
         Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
         Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any
         consequences from this. by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you
         mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and that happens all
         the time.
              o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels
         are willing to go protect their operations.
                 o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                 o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
         community before, coercing computer science majors into working for
         them.
                 o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
         discovering hackers within Mexico.
         need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply
         publishing tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the
         same camp as the bloggers  [yes, i think it needs to be clear that
         their damage will be similar to what bloggers or wikileaks can
         do--limited.  But maybe more a danger to themselves, since they are
         no longer challenging governments, but criminal organizations]

          

         On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

           Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but
           there are several issues to address and fix here.

           These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
           discussion:

                o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but
           we can't gloss over that fact
                o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
           between stealing bank records from government computers and
           overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
           information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
           kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
           talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
           politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
           going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
           killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
           operational details, because they acted as informants, because
           they exposed links with officials or because they somehow sullied
           the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of information is
           damaging to the cartels themselves?
                o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
           realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure
           of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for
           the technical ability by a very small number of its members to
           infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal information.
           Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on a network that
           is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
           information be found? Government databases? Once we know what kind
           of information is accessible, we can also know more about the
           consequences of dissemination.
                o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
           back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings
           done by people who may not understand the difference between an
           anon hacker and a blogger.

           On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

             wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

             -------- Original Message --------

              Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                 From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
             Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                   To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

             you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a
             lot more work

             You need to lay out:

             a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section
             is unclear
             b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
             therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
             c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
             d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone
             who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

             I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
             insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant
             levels of sophistication in their online presence, to include
             the use of cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
             is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
             business online, in a protected fashion.

             Karen Hooper
             Latin America Analyst
             o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
             c: 512.750.7234
             STRATFOR
             www.stratfor.com
             On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

             On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             Link: themeData

             Trigger

             Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
             Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed
             out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
             denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released
             depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a screen?
             exactly when?.  With the most recent video release, Anonymous
             makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels. Threats such as
             releasing identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
             politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels.
             The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped
             member otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
             between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
             unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly different
             operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
             Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
             believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
             not believe for a second that the cartels have no experience
             with hackers.

              

             In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned
             as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their
             demands of releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned
             right up front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening
             to hit back. Provide enough details so we understand who this
             guy is and why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous'
             claims of possessing revealing information on cartel members and
             operations are true, cartels will likely respond with violence
             against individuals revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you
             mean Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public
             disclosure of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force the
             GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i
             don't understand what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten
             Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
             against Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will
             continue their threats against any individual using online media
             WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about
             bloggers here. against the cartels.

              

             The Battle Space

             Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
             realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere
             of the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience
             geographical boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
             exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They
             are physical people tho live in the real world. They have names
             and addresses - although most of them are likely outside of MX.)
              Anonymous' power base consists of their technical capabilities
             in hacking. Any information connected to the Internet is
             vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's of
             individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population
             could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
             has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big
             company with a website that brings in revenue, but it does not
             really matter if you don't run operations on the web. Los Z
             don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are also far less
             dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

             Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power
             base consists of the perceived anonymity that its members
             believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating
             through the internet. This gives an opening for people
             disgruntled by anything and everything to practice general
             dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity + audience = troll.
             Only a fraction of the large web of people who identify
             themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
             capability. 

             The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been
             from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

             The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
             Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
             maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
             commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
             and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight.
             There is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar
             capacity.  Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue
             and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
             experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels are
             always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence.
             While battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law
             Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in
             the flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted media
             outlets. Murdering journalists and online bloggers in order to
             cover details of their operations. ok... but that's kind of a
             red herrng for this discussion. You need to focus on the
             possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
             have no cyber presence.

              

             Anonymous' Weapons

             Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
             criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
             combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly
             disseminating sensitive information on cartels and propagating
             anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced websites in
             Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous
             admitted in their video to cartels, they cannot fight with
             guns.  The significance of a targeted information operations
             campaign by technically elite individuals can not be overlooked
             should not be underestimated. Cartels view main stream media
             outlets and social media blogs as such a threat to their
             operations, that they have continued to target journalists and
             bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was placed
             with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the body of a
             blogger. The message threatened any users who denounce cartels
             on blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not
             really addressing the subheading

             As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet
             risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest
             Anonymous is capable of possessing information they threaten to
             release. By releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
             Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
             individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
             information is limited by what is available via the Internet.
             Government computers connected to the Internet should always be
             considered a possibility of an attack. However, as with the
             compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer
             networks, information available to Mexico's intelligence
             collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to
             say here? This isn't clear at all

              

             Cartel's Defense

                         A counter response to the video? by the cartels has
             yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped
             member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the
             threat posed by hackers so... how has there not been a counter
             response? also this undermines your statements above about how
             Anonymous is soley internet based, and underlines the
             vulnerabilities of associated members. How did they find teh
             Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well give you
             some indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
             Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the
             cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed
             for them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies
             dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and
             we have good intel indicating that) they are working on
             disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can
             operate in any region of the world. Personal information
             including locations is only available if a hacker chooses to
             divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
             figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous. Cartels
             are only capable of dealing with their online enemy, if they can
             physically reach out to them. Or start employing hackers of
             their own under their payroll? Stranger things have happened,
             Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                         Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
             Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the
             help of computer science majors through personal threats has
             been reported in the past where? What cartels? reported where?. 
             Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence and drug
             trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of technical
             experts to help combat any threat by computer hackers.  While
             identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it
             is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
             operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies such
             as the FBi, with far more technical experience and resources
             than cartels, struggle to find hackers through investigations.
             A) How do you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they
             kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are
             equally difficult to track down

                         In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
             likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with,
             brute force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT
             operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they
             wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
             communities will likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel
             members.  Narco banners and public display of violence will
             likely continue to be used to scare online media into submission
             i'm not really seeing the online media-international hacking
             group connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
             inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
             encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of cartel
             violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will remain to be
             seen until cartels are able to seek out and capture members of
             the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the collective bluff
             and simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can
             inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:50:49",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1288283_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1290168,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else can build
   off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they pose to innocent
   people caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing on journalists
   or taxi drivers they show little understanding of the situation.  This has
   long term implications in not just Mexico.  They don't consider the
   consequences of their actions and they act without understanding the
   environment.  It was the same when they released information on the Sony
   Playstation network to protest Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a
   point. 

   On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing possible
     cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat Anonymous can pose
     to cartels. The video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing
     personal information on cartels as well as states a member had been
     kidnapped. I could not find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of
     the individual being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites
     (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an
     individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the Operation
     Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

     Link: themeData
     Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
     denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed out at
     drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
     criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked individual
     addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the most recent
     video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels
     in Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers, police,
     politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The
     hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member
     otherwise face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming
     November 5th was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
     reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met.
     The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
     presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out at
     online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing
     with any headaches from hackers before. 

     What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
          o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat to
     Mexican cartels.
          o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online media
          o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out at
     cartels

     While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a threat
          o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess identifiable
     information on cartel members
          o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
     cartels
          o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
     identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in the
     realm of possibilities for
                 Anonymous
                 o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
     illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

     Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the ultra-violent
     world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result, their understanding of
     cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when
     sitting in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
     retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online assault of
     cartels.
          o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists will
     cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these individuals are
     forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are often
     victims of extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the
     identity of these individuals will not have a significant impact on
     cartel                   operations. Politicans have been accused of
     working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before, however
     there has yet to be any consequences from this.
          o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels are
     willing to go protect their operations.
             o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
             o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science community
     before, coercing computer science majors into working for them.
             o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
     discovering hackers within Mexico.

      

     On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

       Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but there
       are several issues to address and fix here.

       These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
       discussion:

            o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but we
       can't gloss over that fact
            o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference between
       stealing bank records from government computers and overloading
       www.loszetas.com main page.
            o     There's no thought out process of what sort of information
       could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is kept online and
       accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
       identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops, politicians and
       businessmen who need to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
       Think about why the bloggers and media were killed in previous
       instances. Was it because they revealed operational details, because
       they acted as informants, because they exposed links with officials or
       because they somehow sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what
       kind of information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
            o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
       realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure of
       damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for the
       technical ability by a very small number of its members to infiltrate
       certain networks and databases and steal information. Now what kind of
       information would a cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
       internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could information be found?
       Government databases? Once we know what kind of information is
       accessible, we can also know more about the consequences of
       dissemination.
            o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
       back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings done by
       people who may not understand the difference between an anon hacker
       and a blogger.

       On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

         wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

         -------- Original Message --------

          Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
             Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
             From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
         Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
               To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

         you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a lot
         more work

         You need to lay out:

         a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section is
         unclear
         b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
         therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
         c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
         d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone who
         breaches their systems or exposes their connections

         I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
         insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant levels
         of sophistication in their online presence, to include the use of
         cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no reason to
         assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
         protected fashion.

         Karen Hooper
         Latin America Analyst
         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
         c: 512.750.7234
         STRATFOR
         www.stratfor.com
         On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

         On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

         Link: themeData

         Trigger

         Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
         Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed out
         at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
         Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released depicting...?
         a person talking? a voice? words on a screen? exactly when?.  With
         the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
         the criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of
         Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
         journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker group
         demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
         consequences. The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal
         cartels and hackers, presents an unprecedented war front for the
         cartels. The vastly different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas
         leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have little
         experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no experience
         with the cartels. I do not believe for a second that the cartels
         have no experience with hackers.

          

         In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
         day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of
         releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up
         front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back.
         Provide enough details so we understand who this guy is and why/how
         he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing
         revealing information on cartel members and operations are true,
         cartels will likely respond with violence against individuals
         revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous
         members?. It also is likely that public disclosure of GOM officials
         who collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving the
         Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this means. You
         mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel
         will be able to retaliate against Anonymous remains unanswered .
         However, cartels will continue their threats against any individual
         using online media WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not
         talking about bloggers here. against the cartels.

          

         The Battle Space

         Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
         realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere of
         the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience geographical
         boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in
         cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They are physical people
         tho live in the real world. They have names and addresses - although
         most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power base
         consists of their technical capabilities in hacking. Any information
         connected to the Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers.
         (Identifying the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst of
         Mexico's population could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of
         what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
         Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in revenue,
         but it does not really matter if you don't run operations on the
         web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are also far
         less dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

         Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power base
         consists of the perceived anonymity that its members believe
         themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating through the
         internet. This gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
         and everything to practice general dickery. As the popular meme
         goes, anonymity + audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web
         of people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of
         serious IT capability. 

         The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been from
         targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

         The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
         Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
         maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
         commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money and
         issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight. There
         is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity.
         Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue and escalating
         brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing
         different types of threats. Cartels are always suffering at the
         hands of cartel on cartel violence. While battling each other,
         cartels still face arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels
         wish to avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
         have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
         bloggers in order to cover details of their operations. ok... but
         that's kind of a red herrng for this discussion. You need to focus
         on the possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume
         they have no cyber presence.

          

         Anonymous' Weapons

         Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
         criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
         combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly disseminating
         sensitive information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel
         statements via social media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean
         so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
         cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance of a
         targeted information operations campaign by technically elite
         individuals can not be overlooked should not be underestimated.
         Cartels view main stream media outlets and social media blogs as
         such a threat to their operations, that they have continued to
         target journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los
         Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the
         body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who denounce
         cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not
         really addressing the subheading

         As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet risks
         disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest Anonymous
         is capable of possessing information they threaten to release. By
         releasing identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
         cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those individuals.
         Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive information is limited
         by what is available via the Internet. Government computers
         connected to the Internet should always be considered a possibility
         of an attack. However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the
         US governments computer networks, information available to Mexico's
         intelligence collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you
         trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

          

         Cartel's Defense

                     A counter response to the video? by the cartels has yet
         to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped member by
         Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed
         by hackers so... how has there not been a counter response? also
         this undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is soley
         internet based, and underlines the vulnerabilities of associated
         members. How did they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that
         could very well give you some indication to the technical ability of
         the cartels . As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
         wide web , the cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely
         are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole
         agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume
         (and we have good intel indicating that) they are working on
         disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in
         any region of the world. Personal information including locations is
         only available if a hacker chooses to divulge it or if the subject
         of the attack is savvy enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only
         work for Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
         online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
         employing hackers of their own under their payroll? Stranger things
         have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                     Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
         Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the help of
         computer science majors through personal threats has been reported
         in the past where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels
         operate in the world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they
         will likely need the assistance of technical experts to help combat
         any threat by computer hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside
         of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable
         of identifying any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
         enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
         experience and resources than cartels, struggle to find hackers
         through investigations. A) How do you know they are not in Mexico?
         (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not
         all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                     In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
         likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with, brute
         force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT operations within
         Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals
         with alleged connections to hacker communities will likely be
         targeted and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and
         public display of violence will likely continue to be used to scare
         online media into submission i'm not really seeing the online
         media-international hacking group connection here.  The cruel
         manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer hackers
         have unlikely encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
         cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will remain to
         be seen until cartels are able to seek out and capture members of
         the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the collective bluff and
         simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 17:22:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1290168_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1294897,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   yes, marc called them a mob - and that seems accurate

   On 10/24/11 1:33 PM, scott stewart wrote:

     Good point. 
     In terrorist terms they are more like grassroots people than AQ core. 
     From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
     Reply-To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:11:05 -0500
     To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
     Somehow we have to stop referring to 'anonymous' as a monolith.  They
     are a bunch of different people that essentially get together in an
     online-form of a mob to carry out some action. I'm not sure how to do
     this in writing consistently.  But let's start with shit like 'people
     joining Anonymous chatrooms and claiming to be part of the movement' or
     something like that. 

     Comments in green below.  This is coming together nicely. 

     On 10/24/11 11:19 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of
       these in the US?
        What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
       I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
       whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
       because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
       revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of
       understanding of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is
       expendable to cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of
       coercion.

       Anonymous does not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
       cartels.  mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of
       el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication
       as a tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable
       intelligence, the government will use it against the cartels. That's a
       physical threat, if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify
       that Anonymous can not directly effect physical security. Any impact
       to the cartel in revealing information will be from actions of rival
       cartels or the GoM. They may release information on a given politician
       being linked to the cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the
       politician will feel an impact (Just because Anonymous says there is a
       link, doesn't make it true). It would be up to others to take action. 
       I think the way you have it worded in the above sentence is good. 
       Follow with a sentence explaining the rest of it, because readers will
       have the same question Karen did.  Something like 'Rather, the threat
       to cartels would come in what information anonymous could expose that
       is useful to their enemies'

       Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online
       activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to
       conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't know how
       much, but we do know they will have some points of operational
       vulnerability I have heard of cartels doing business online, but don't
       have specific examples which could be used in assessing their
       vulnerability online.

       by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired,
       arrested or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I
       should say, there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out
       politicians as colluding.
       On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

         Karen Hooper
         Latin America Analyst
         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
         c: 512.750.7234
         STRATFOR
         www.stratfor.com
         On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
         Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
         possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
         Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by people using
         the banner of Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on
         cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
         find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual
         being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico
         and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual
         posting flyers ['critical of cartels'?] in Veracruz as part of the
         Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation. [this is
         good and will be enough information to go with, though you'll need a
         quick explanation of what 'operation paperstorm' is.  Adding
         something in the explaining the flyers will work]

         Link: themeData
         Anonymous, a decentralized hacker collective  famous for distributed
         denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government and corporate
         websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
         statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video
         depicting a masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on
         October 10? With the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold
         threats towards the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as
         releasing identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
         journalists who collude with criminal cartels do they specify
         whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of these in the US?
          What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
         group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
         face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
         was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
         their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
         potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
         presents a unique threat towards TCOs [If TCO= transnational
         criminal organization, it's not really unique.  Many such
         organizations do their crimes online, and have been hacked in
         response--like the nigerian princess scams. I think you should just
         say it's a unique threat to DTOs] . We know of cartels lashing out
         at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels
         dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

         What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
              o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
         threat to Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a
         gun to the head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for
         the using publication as a tool to force government action. If you
         reveal actionable intelligence, the government will use it against
         the cartels. That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
              o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
         media
              o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out
         at cartels

         While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
         threat, if it had access to certain types of information:

                 -The threat is in the information they can expose that may
     be of use to any cartel enemies.  That could be to the government or
     other cartels or even local citizens (the last one may be a stretch, but
     i could imagine someone discrediting cartel members in the eyes of the
     public).

              o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims tocut possess
         identifiable information on cartel members 
              o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
         cartels [cut this part here, and make the point at the end of this
         section/paragraph]
              o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
         identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in
         the realm of possibilities for
                     Anonymous
                     o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
         illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels
         are known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We
         don't know how much, but we do know they will have some points of
         operational vulnerability

        -They claim to have information on those that collude with cartels 
     (use the stuff you have above].  Releasing such information could hurt
     cartels' support networks, but most of these people are also easily
     replaceable. 
                 -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents
     have access to, and doubt they have such information that provides any
     sort of existential threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 

         Most Anonymous hackers are likely far removed from the ultra-violent
         world of drug trafficking in Mexico, but it's quite possible that
         some of its members in this campaign are in Mexico and opposed to
         the violence [or something like that.  my limited understanding is
         there are still activist crusader-types in Mexico, yeah?  it seems
         very possible those with a bit of time or computer skills could have
         joined up with anonymous] . As a result, their understanding of
         cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous members in other
         countries may act with confidence when sitting in front of a
         computer, but this may blind them to any possible retribution. They
         may not even know the impact of any online assault of cartels.  [the
         part below and above is written rather normatively.  We need to take
         that out.  just state the facts]
              o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists
         will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these
         individuals are forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi
         drivers are often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
         halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals will not have
         a significant impact on cartel                   operations.
         Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
         Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any
         consequences from this. by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you
         mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and that happens all
         the time.
              o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels
         are willing to go protect their operations.
                 o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                 o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
         community before, coercing computer science majors into working for
         them.
                 o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
         discovering hackers within Mexico.
         need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply
         publishing tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the
         same camp as the bloggers  [yes, i think it needs to be clear that
         their damage will be similar to what bloggers or wikileaks can
         do--limited.  But maybe more a danger to themselves, since they are
         no longer challenging governments, but criminal organizations]

          

         On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

           Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but
           there are several issues to address and fix here.

           These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
           discussion:

                o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but
           we can't gloss over that fact
                o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
           between stealing bank records from government computers and
           overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
           information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
           kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
           talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
           politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
           going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
           killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
           operational details, because they acted as informants, because
           they exposed links with officials or because they somehow sullied
           the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of information is
           damaging to the cartels themselves?
                o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
           realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure
           of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for
           the technical ability by a very small number of its members to
           infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal information.
           Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on a network that
           is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
           information be found? Government databases? Once we know what kind
           of information is accessible, we can also know more about the
           consequences of dissemination.
                o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
           back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings
           done by people who may not understand the difference between an
           anon hacker and a blogger.

           On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

             wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

             -------- Original Message --------

              Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                 From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
             Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                   To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

             you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a
             lot more work

             You need to lay out:

             a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section
             is unclear
             b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
             therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
             c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
             d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone
             who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

             I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
             insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant
             levels of sophistication in their online presence, to include
             the use of cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
             is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
             business online, in a protected fashion.

             Karen Hooper
             Latin America Analyst
             o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
             c: 512.750.7234
             STRATFOR
             www.stratfor.com
             On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

             On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             Link: themeData

             Trigger

             Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
             Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed
             out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
             denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released
             depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a screen?
             exactly when?.  With the most recent video release, Anonymous
             makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels. Threats such as
             releasing identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
             politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels.
             The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped
             member otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
             between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
             unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly different
             operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
             Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
             believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
             not believe for a second that the cartels have no experience
             with hackers.

              

             In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned
             as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their
             demands of releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned
             right up front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening
             to hit back. Provide enough details so we understand who this
             guy is and why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous'
             claims of possessing revealing information on cartel members and
             operations are true, cartels will likely respond with violence
             against individuals revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you
             mean Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public
             disclosure of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force the
             GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i
             don't understand what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten
             Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
             against Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will
             continue their threats against any individual using online media
             WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about
             bloggers here. against the cartels.

              

             The Battle Space

             Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
             realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere
             of the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience
             geographical boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
             exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They
             are physical people tho live in the real world. They have names
             and addresses - although most of them are likely outside of MX.)
              Anonymous' power base consists of their technical capabilities
             in hacking. Any information connected to the Internet is
             vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's of
             individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population
             could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
             has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big
             company with a website that brings in revenue, but it does not
             really matter if you don't run operations on the web. Los Z
             don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are also far less
             dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

             Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power
             base consists of the perceived anonymity that its members
             believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating
             through the internet. This gives an opening for people
             disgruntled by anything and everything to practice general
             dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity + audience = troll.
             Only a fraction of the large web of people who identify
             themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
             capability. 

             The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been
             from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

             The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
             Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
             maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
             commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
             and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight.
             There is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar
             capacity.  Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue
             and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
             experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels are
             always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence.
             While battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law
             Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in
             the flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted media
             outlets. Murdering journalists and online bloggers in order to
             cover details of their operations. ok... but that's kind of a
             red herrng for this discussion. You need to focus on the
             possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
             have no cyber presence.

              

             Anonymous' Weapons

             Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
             criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
             combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly
             disseminating sensitive information on cartels and propagating
             anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced websites in
             Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous
             admitted in their video to cartels, they cannot fight with
             guns.  The significance of a targeted information operations
             campaign by technically elite individuals can not be overlooked
             should not be underestimated. Cartels view main stream media
             outlets and social media blogs as such a threat to their
             operations, that they have continued to target journalists and
             bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was placed
             with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the body of a
             blogger. The message threatened any users who denounce cartels
             on blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not
             really addressing the subheading

             As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet
             risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest
             Anonymous is capable of possessing information they threaten to
             release. By releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
             Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
             individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
             information is limited by what is available via the Internet.
             Government computers connected to the Internet should always be
             considered a possibility of an attack. However, as with the
             compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer
             networks, information available to Mexico's intelligence
             collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to
             say here? This isn't clear at all

              

             Cartel's Defense

                         A counter response to the video? by the cartels has
             yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped
             member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the
             threat posed by hackers so... how has there not been a counter
             response? also this undermines your statements above about how
             Anonymous is soley internet based, and underlines the
             vulnerabilities of associated members. How did they find teh
             Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well give you
             some indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
             Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the
             cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed
             for them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies
             dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and
             we have good intel indicating that) they are working on
             disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can
             operate in any region of the world. Personal information
             including locations is only available if a hacker chooses to
             divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
             figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous. Cartels
             are only capable of dealing with their online enemy, if they can
             physically reach out to them. Or start employing hackers of
             their own under their payroll? Stranger things have happened,
             Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                         Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
             Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the
             help of computer science majors through personal threats has
             been reported in the past where? What cartels? reported where?. 
             Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence and drug
             trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of technical
             experts to help combat any threat by computer hackers.  While
             identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it
             is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
             operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies such
             as the FBi, with far more technical experience and resources
             than cartels, struggle to find hackers through investigations.
             A) How do you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they
             kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are
             equally difficult to track down

                         In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
             likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with,
             brute force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT
             operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they
             wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
             communities will likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel
             members.  Narco banners and public display of violence will
             likely continue to be used to scare online media into submission
             i'm not really seeing the online media-international hacking
             group connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
             inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
             encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of cartel
             violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will remain to be
             seen until cartels are able to seek out and capture members of
             the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the collective bluff
             and simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can
             inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:39:58",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1294897_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1302136,"Fwd: Re: Fwd: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
 conflict in context
","   -------- Original Message --------

   Subject: Re: Fwd: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta    
            conflict in context                                               
      Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 12:14:05 -0500                                   
      From: kyle.rhodes <kyle.rhodes@stratfor.com>                            
        To: Maverick Fisher <fisher@stratfor.com>                             
        CC: Eric Brown <eric.brown@stratfor.com>, Megan Headley               
            <megan.headley@stratfor.com>, scott stewart                       
            <stewart@stratfor.com>                                            

   Some quick ideas  -today's crazy busy for me again

   \"Anonymous\" Threats In Context of Mexican Cartel Violence

   Anonymous, Cartel Conflict in Context of Ongoing Violence

   Anonymous vs The Cartels: New Chapter in Mexican Drug Conflict

   On 11/2/11 12:02 PM, Maverick Fisher wrote:

     Thoughts?

     Sent from my iPhone
     Begin forwarded message:

       From: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
       Date: November 2, 2011 11:15:37 AM CDT
       To: Maverick Fisher <fisher@stratfor.com>
       Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
       conflict in context

       I'm a terrible advertising person.
       Mexico: Examining the Anonymous/Zeta Cartel Conflict
       From: Maverick Fisher <fisher@stratfor.com>
       Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 11:05:04 -0500 (CDT)
       To: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
       Subject: Fwd: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
       conflict in context
       Any thoughts on tweaking the title?

       Sent from my iPhone
       Begin forwarded message:

         From: Megan Headley <megan.headley@stratfor.com>
         Date: November 2, 2011 10:54:14 AM CDT
         To: Maverick Fisher <fisher@stratfor.com>
         Cc: Kyle Rhodes <kyle.rhodes@stratfor.com>,  Eric Brown
         <eric.brown@stratfor.com>, Mike Marchio <mike.marchio@stratfor.com>
         Subject: Re: Fwd: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs.
         Zeta conflict in context

         Hey Maverick,

         You're right about this weekly. Yes, I think Mexico / Cartel should
         both be in the title if possible. Not sure if EB has other
         suggestions.

         Megan

         On 11/1/11 2:47 PM, Maverick Fisher wrote:

           Very good weekly -- I'm sure this is going to get a lot play given
           the topic, so let's be sure to pick our title wisely. I'm OK with
           Stick's title, but do you think Mexico or Cartel should be in
           there?
           Begin forwarded message:

             From: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
             Subject: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
             conflict in context
             Date: November 1, 2011 1:11:00 PM CDT
             To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
             Reply-To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
              Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta Conflict in Context
             On Oct. 31, the online activist collective Anonymous posted a
             message to the internet  in which it stated that it was
             continuing with its campaign against the Mexican criminal
             cartels and their governmentsupporters despite the inherent
             danger.
              
             The messageurged inexperienced activists who might not be
             practicing proper online security measures to abstain from
             participating. It also urged individuals associated with
             Anonymous to not conduct physical pamphlet drops, participate in
             protests, wear or purchase Guy Fawkes masks, or use Guy Fawkes
             imagery in their internet or physical world activities.  Guy
             Fawkes was British Catholic conspirator who was involved in a
             plot to bomb the British Parliament in 1605, and who has become
             somewhat of an Anarchist icon in the United Kingdom. The British
             celebrate Guy Fawkes Day each year on Nov. 5, and the day has
             special meaning for the anarchists.  
              
             It is not coincidental then, that in their Oct. 6 video,
             Anonymous set Nov. 5 as the deadline for Los Zetas to release
             the Anonymous associate who was allegedly kidnapped in Veracruz
             by Los Zetas. The Anonymous associate was reportedly abducted
             during an Anonymous leaflet campaign called Operation
             Paperstorm.
              
             The Oct. 31message acknowledged that the operation against Los
             Zetas, dubbed \"# OpCartel\" is dangerous and noted that the
             collective would be assembling a hand-picked group of known and
             trusted associates to participate in a special task force to
             execute the operation. It asked supporters to use a software
             widget they had developed in order to anonymously pass
             information pertaining to drug trafficking to the task force,
             which will then distribute it. 
              
             With Nov. 5, approaching, and at least some elements of
             Anonymous not backing down on their threats to Los Zetas, we
             thought it would be useful to provide some context to the
             present conflict between Anonymous and Los Zetas and to also
             address some of its potential implications.
              
             Context
              
             First it issignificant to understand that the epicenter of this
             event is Veracruz, which  has been a very busy place over the
             past few months in terms of Mexico's cartel wars. The port city
             also serves as a critical transportation hub for the narcotics
             smuggling activities of the Los Zetas cartel. Because of this,
             Stratfor has identified Veracruz as
             [link http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111024-mexican-drug-war-update-polarization-continues ] a
             bellweather city thatwill help determine the trajectory of the
             Los Zetas cartel in the coming months. 
              
             One of the big recent developments in Veracruz was the Sinaloa
             cartel's push into the Zeta stronghold using the
             [link http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-mexico-security-memo-zetas-defensive-veracruz ] Cartel
             de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG), which using the name
             Matazetas (Zeta killers) conducted some high-profile body dumps
             of over 50 alleged low-level Zeta operatives on Sept. 20 and
             22.  On Oct. 25, Mexican Marines arrested Carlos Arturo
             Pitalua-Carillo, \"El Bam Bam,\" who was Los Zetas plaza boss in
             Veracruz.  This means that in Veracruz at the present time, Los
             Zetas are feeling pressure from both the Government of Mexico
             and the CJNG.
              
             Into this dynamic flow, we had the Anonymous internet collective
             begin to take action in Veracruz in August. In response to what
             Anonymous saw as the state of Veracruz supporting the Los Zetas
             cartel, they launched Operation Paperstorm, in which activists
             associated with the Anonymous collective distributed leaflets
             throughout Veracruz claiming the state government supports Los
             Zetas.  They conducted major leaflet distributions on Aug. 13,
             20, and 29. They also released videos to the internet on Aug. 26
             and 29, condemning the State of Veracruz. (According to the Oct.
             6 Anonymous video, Los Zetas allegedly kidnapped one of the
             activists involved in Operation Paperstorm.)
              
             Activities outside of Veracruz have also played a part in
             setting the stage. On Sept. 13, two people were tortured and
             killed and their bodies hung from a pedestrianoverpass in Nuevo
             Laredo, Tamaulipas state.  Signs left with the bodies signified
             that Los Zetas had killed the pair because they had posted
             information pertaining to Los Zetas on blogs that specialize in
             reporting on the Mexican cartels. On Sept 26, the body of
             Marisol Macias Casteneda was found beheaded in a park in Nuevo
             Laredo.   Macias who worked for a local newspaper allegedly
             posted on cartel blogs using the nickname \"Laredo Girl.\" A
             message found with her body noted that she was killed by Los
             Zetas due to her online activities.
              
             Following the death of Laredo Girl, Anonymous claimed
             responsibility for a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack
             conducted against the official website of the state of Veracruz.
             Although she was killed by Los Zetas in Nuevo Laredo Tamaulipas,
             Anonymous said their attack on the Veracruz state website was
             because of the death of Laredo Girl.
              
             It is also important to recognize that Anonymous was also
             unhappy with the State of Veracruz over the decision of the
             state to prosecute two individuals who had posted false
             kidnapping reports on Twitter on Aug. 25. The false reports
             alleged that a group of children had been abducted from a
             Veracruz school and the panic caused by the report allegedly
             resulted in some two dozen traffic accidents as terrified
             parents rushed to the school to check o n their children. The
             so-called \"twitter terrorists\" were initially charged with
             offenses that could have carried a 30-year sentence. Anonymous,
             which has absolute freedom of speech on the internet as one of
             its foundational principles, took umbrage with this stiff
             penalty for the Twitter case - especially because it stood in
             stark contrast with the impunity many cartel figures enjoy in
             Mexico. 
              
              
             Following the Oct. 6 release of the video in which Anonymous
             threatened Los Zetas if they did not release the kidnapped
             anonymous activist, Stratfor began to focus on the story, and in
             light of the approaching Nov. 5 deadline, decided to publish an,
             [link http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111028-mexicos-cartels-draw-online-activists-ire ] analysis
             of the topic, which was released on Oct. 28.  
              
             Following the release of our analysis, the topic has received a
             great deal of media coverage. This publicity has generated a
             very interesting response from Anonymous -- one that emphasizes
             the fast that it is a collective of people and not an
             organization.  As some Anonymousactivists were backing off the
             issue, erasing online user accounts, suggesting that the
             operation against Los Zetas had been a hoax and claiming that no
             activist had been kidnapped, other activists suggested that the
             campaign should be suspended. Still other activists became more
             strident and determined in their posts, urging that the campaign
             continue. Since Anonymous is a collective, activists can pick
             and choose which actions they will participate in. that means in
             his case that those activists who want to refrain from the
             campaign will and those who want to participate will continue
             it.
              
             This will to continue was manifested on Oct. 29, the personal
             website of Gustavo RosarioTorres, the former attorney general of
             the Mexican state of Tobasco was hacked and defaced with a
             message from Anonymous Mexico stating that Rosario was
             aZeta.  It was also reflected in the tone of the Oct. 31
             message. Some activists associated with Anonymous clearly feel
             compelled to continue with the campaign due to the outpouring of
             public support they received in the wake of the media coverage.
             According to the Oct 31. Video statement:
              
             \"we received many expressions of support and solidarity as well
             as the voices of people crying for help. We must remember that
             we are on the side of the people, and we cannot let down the
             people, especially in critical moments like the one they
             currently live in.\"
              
             We therefore anticipate that some Anonymous activists will
             continue the campaign. We also believe that Los Zetas will
             respond.
              
             Revenge of the Sith (Yes Kamran, I agree with Isa that Star Wars
             is better than Star Trek) 
              
             The variouscartel groups in Mexico have long used the internet
             as a place to trumpet their triumphs on the battlefield and to
             taunt and even degrade their enemies. The cartels have posted
             videos of them torturing, executing and beheading members of
             opposing cartels. They also frequently monitor narco blogs and
             sometimeseven post on them.  As demonstrated by the blogger
             killings in Nuevo Laredo in September, Los Zetas appear to
             possess at least some rudimentary capability to trace online
             activity to people in thephysical world. It is not known if they
             employ their own team of dedicated cyber experts or if they rely
             on sources within the Mexican government - although the most
             likely answer is probably a little of both. 
              
              
             In past Anonymous actions, like the Dec. 2010 attack against Pay
             Pal following the Wikileaks case, governments in the U.S. and
             the UK have arrested numerous individuals associated with
             Anonymous who allegedly participated in the attack. In June
             2011, Turkey arrested dozens of activists associated with
             Anonymousactions conducted against the Turkish government for
             its efforts to establish a national internet filtering system.
              
             Los Zetas, like the other Mexican cartels, do not take affronts
             lightly. Even if Anonymous is not able to provide information
             that will damage Los Zetas smuggling operations, the very fact
             that this group has decided to challenge Los Zetas publicly will
             result in some sort of response. The big question is: do
             theypossess the capability to effectively trace the organizers
             of the Anonymousaction against them?
              
             One problem with an entity such as Anonymous is that it is
             intentionally amorphous - it is also as transnational as the
             internet, and it would not be surprising if many of those chosen
             to participate in the operation against Los Zetas are located
             outside of Mexico in locations such as the U.S. and Europe which
             are outside the immediate reach of Los Zetas.
              
             But the amorphous nature of Anonymous can also cut the other
             way.  If Los Zetas pick up and execute some random patrons from
             an internet cafe, behead them and place Guy Fawkesmasks on their
             heads, it will be very difficult to prove that they
             were not associated with Anonymous.  As Anonymous noted in their
             Oct. 31 video, this is dangerous business.
              
              
             The Big Picture
              
             One thing to watch as the Anonymous operation continues is the
             way in which the Mexican public reacts. Many people in the
             Mexican middle and upper classes have been deeply affected by
             the criminal cartels and theviolence the practice. We talk to
             many people in Mexico who are fearful of being kidnapped. In
             many communities, especially places like Juarez, Torreon,
             Monterrey and Veracruz, businessmen are being caught in a
             terrible bind. On one hand, they are receiving ever-increasing
             extortion demands from the cartels, while at the same time their
             business revenues are dwindling because people are afraid to go
             out due to the violence associated with those same cartels. This
             is forcing many businessmen out of business. It is also creating
             a great deal of frustration and resentment.
              
             At the same time, Mexico has become one of the most dangerous
             countries in the world for journalists, and many media companies
             practice heavy self-censorship to protect themselves. In the
             wake of the September blogger killings some of the narco blogs,
             like Blog del Narco, have also exhibited strong signs of fear
             inspired self-censorship.   This means that the legitimate press
             is not able to be of any real aid to the Mexican people.
              
             Mexican citizens are also frustrated with their government,
             which is well-known for corruption.  This is the sentiment
             feeding Anonymous' original campaign in Veracruz.  This
             frustration has lead some people to begin to talk about
             vigilante groups to fight the cartels - though that has been
             attempted before in Mexico and as we saw in the case of
             [link http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090714_mexico_la_familia_michoacana_expands_its_attacks ] La
             Familia Michoacan, which originally began as such a vigilante
             group, vigilantism frequently does not end well.
              
             This is where Anonymous may fit in. With Mexican citizens unable
             to rely on their government, the media or even armed vigilante
             groups for assistance, they may embrace Anonymous and come to
             view its form of cyber vigilantism as an outlet for their
             frustration -- and a safe way to pass oninformation pertaining
             to cartel activities.  If this occurs, we may see people not
             just in Veracruz and other Zeta controlled areas providing
             information to Anonymous, but citizens from all over the
             country.
              
             Also, in the same way that cartels leak information
             togovernments in an effort to use them as weapons against their
             rivals, we could also very well see groups such as the Sinaloa
             cartel provide information on Los Zetas to Anonymous. This of
             course would provide even more reason for Los Zetas to strike
             out against the activist collective.
              
             If the Anonymous information campaign does indeed take off, and
             if Anonymous is attacked by Los Zetas, the activists could
             resort to releasing sensitive information to the U.S. Drug
             Enforcement Administration in an attempt to damage Los Zetas.
             This would be an incredible irony in light of the way Anonymous
             has viewed itself as an opponent of the U.S. government in cases
             like Wikileaks. 

           --
           Maverick Fisher
           Director, Writers and Graphics
           STRATFOR
           221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
           Austin, TX 78701
           T: +1 512 744 4322 | F: +1 512 744 4334
           www.STRATFOR.com

 --
 Kyle Rhodes
 Public Relations Manager
 STRATFOR
 www.stratfor.com

 kyle.rhodes@stratfor.com
 +1.512.744.4309
 www.twitter.com/stratfor
 www.facebook.com/stratfor
","2011-11-02 18:18:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1302136_fwd-re-fwd-s-weekly-for-comment-placing-the-anonymous-vs.html","megan.headley@stratfor.com","","ryan.bridges@stratfor.com",""
1305059,"[CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing possible
   cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat Anonymous can pose
   to cartels. The video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing personal
   information on cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I
   could not find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual
   being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and
   Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual posting flyers
   in Veracruz as part of the Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is
   speculation.

   Link: themeData
   Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
   denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed out at
   drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
   criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked individual
   addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the most recent video
   release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels in
   Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers, police,
   politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker
   group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
   consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
   mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their
   demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The potential of
   conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents a unique
   threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out at online bloggers,
   but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches
   from hackers before. 

   What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
        o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat to
   Mexican cartels.
        o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online media
        o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out at
   cartels

   While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a threat
        o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess identifiable
   information on cartel members
        o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
   cartels
        o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
   identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in the
   realm of possibilities for
               Anonymous
               o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit
   online activity (child pornography rings)

   Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the ultra-violent world
   of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result, their understanding of cartel
   activities may be limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting
   in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
   retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online assault of
   cartels.
        o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists will cost
   lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these individuals are forced
   to collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are often victims of
   extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the identity of these
   individuals will not have a significant impact on cartel                  
   operations. Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero
   & Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any consequences
   from this.
        o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels are
   willing to go protect their operations.
           o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
           o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science community
   before, coercing computer science majors into working for them.
           o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of discovering
   hackers within Mexico.

    

   On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but there are
     several issues to address and fix here.

     These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the discussion:

          o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but we
     can't gloss over that fact
          o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference between
     stealing bank records from government computers and overloading
     www.loszetas.com main page.
          o     There's no thought out process of what sort of information
     could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is kept online and
     accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
     identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops, politicians and
     businessmen who need to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
     Think about why the bloggers and media were killed in previous
     instances. Was it because they revealed operational details, because
     they acted as informants, because they exposed links with officials or
     because they somehow sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what
     kind of information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
          o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
     realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure of
     damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for the
     technical ability by a very small number of its members to infiltrate
     certain networks and databases and steal information. Now what kind of
     information would a cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
     internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could information be found?
     Government databases? Once we know what kind of information is
     accessible, we can also know more about the consequences of
     dissemination.
          o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace back
     attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings done by people
     who may not understand the difference between an anon hacker and a
     blogger.

     On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

       wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

       -------- Original Message --------

        Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
           Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
           From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
       Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
             To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

       you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a lot
       more work

       You need to lay out:

       a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section is
       unclear
       b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and therefore
       their vulnerabilities and capabilities
       c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
       d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone who
       breaches their systems or exposes their connections

       I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable insight
       that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant levels of
       sophistication in their online presence, to include the use of cyber
       currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no reason to assume
       that Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a protected
       fashion.

       Karen Hooper
       Latin America Analyst
       o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
       c: 512.750.7234
       STRATFOR
       www.stratfor.com
       On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

       On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       Link: themeData

       Trigger

       Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers. Anonymous,
       a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed out at drug
       cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
       criminal cartels, including a video released depicting...? a person
       talking? a voice? words on a screen? exactly when?.  With the most
       recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
       criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of Mexican?
       American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists who
       collude with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas
       release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. The
       potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
       presents an unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly
       different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
       Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
       believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do not
       believe for a second that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

        

       In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
       day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of
       releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up front.
       Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back. Provide
       enough details so we understand who this guy is and why/how he was
       abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing revealing
       information on cartel members and operations are true, cartels will
       likely respond with violence against individuals revealed as opposing
       cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous members?. It also is likely
       that public disclosure of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will
       force the GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i
       don't understand what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten
       Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
       against Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will continue
       their threats against any individual using online media WC.... you
       mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers here. against
       the cartels.

        

       The Battle Space

       Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate realities
       from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere of the computer
       networks. Anonymous does not experience geographical boundaries. All
       personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in cyber space.  (That is
       not entirely true. They are physical people tho live in the real
       world. They have names and addresses - although most of them are
       likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power base consists of their
       technical capabilities in hacking. Any information connected to the
       Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's
       of individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population could
       be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous has done are
       DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big company with a
       website that brings in revenue, but it does not really matter if you
       don't run operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money via
       e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on the web than the
       jihadists.)

       Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power base
       consists of the perceived anonymity that its members believe
       themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating through the
       internet. This gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything and
       everything to practice general dickery. As the popular meme goes,
       anonymity + audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web of
       people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious
       IT capability. 

       The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been from
       targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

       The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
       Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to maximize
       profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar commerce. Yes.....
       but they use the internet to launder money and issue commands. We know
       that Sinaloa does that from insight. There is no reason to assume that
       Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity.  Their power base is built by
       large amounts of revenue and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like
       Los Zetas, are experienced in facing different types of threats.
       Cartels are always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel
       violence. While battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law
       Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in the
       flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted media outlets.
       Murdering journalists and online bloggers in order to cover details of
       their operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for this
       discussion. You need to focus on the possible vulnerabilities of the
       cartels. Don't just assume they have no cyber presence.

        

       Anonymous' Weapons

       Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
       criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to combat
       cartels lay in information operations, mainly disseminating sensitive
       information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel statements via
       social media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean so far and that
       we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to cartels, they
       cannot fight with guns.  The significance of a targeted information
       operations campaign by technically elite individuals can not be
       overlooked should not be underestimated. Cartels view main stream
       media outlets and social media blogs as such a threat to their
       operations, that they have continued to target journalists and
       bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was placed with a
       dead female body  more relevantly, on the body of a blogger. The
       message threatened any users who denounce cartels on blogging
       websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not really addressing the
       subheading

       As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet risks
       disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest Anonymous is
       capable of possessing information they threaten to release. By
       releasing identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican cartels,
       Anonymous threatens the life of those individuals. Anonymous's ability
       to disseminate sensitive information is limited by what is available
       via the Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
       should always be considered a possibility of an attack. However, as
       with the compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer
       networks, information available to Mexico's intelligence collection
       may not be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This
       isn't clear at all

        

       Cartel's Defense

                   A counter response to the video? by the cartels has yet to
       see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped member by Los
       Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by
       hackers so... how has there not been a counter response? also this
       undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is soley internet
       based, and underlines the vulnerabilities of associated members. How
       did they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well
       give you some indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
       Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the
       cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed for
       them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies dedicated to
       fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good intel
       indicating that) they are working on disrupting the cartels.. Hackers
       threatening cartels, can operate in any region of the world. Personal
       information including locations is only available if a hacker chooses
       to divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
       figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous. Cartels are only
       capable of dealing with their online enemy, if they can physically
       reach out to them. Or start employing hackers of their own under their
       payroll? Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                   Cartels have been known to coerce the services of Mexican
       citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the help of computer
       science majors through personal threats has been reported in the past
       where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels operate in the
       world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they will likely need
       the assistance of technical experts to help combat any threat by
       computer hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has
       been demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying
       any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies
       such as the FBi, with far more technical experience and resources than
       cartels, struggle to find hackers through investigations. A) How do
       you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they kidnapped???)
       B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are equally difficult to
       track down

                   In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
       likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with, brute
       force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT operations within
       Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals
       with alleged connections to hacker communities will likely be targeted
       and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and public display
       of violence will likely continue to be used to scare online media into
       submission i'm not really seeing the online media-international
       hacking group connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
       inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely encountered
       before in their life. Whether the fear of cartel violence softens the
       confidence of Anonymous will remain to be seen until cartels are able
       to seek out and capture members of the hacker group.. Or the Narcos
       could call the collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off any
       inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 16:32:57",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1305059_-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1305171,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Sean, just to be clear

   Your point is that Anonymous hasn't mattered?  Is your argument that
   hackers haven't mattered either?  because if Anonymous is a mob of hackers
   as you argue, how haven't they mattered to their targets?  what about all
   the money spent fighting them?  and as Tristan just pointed out - how
   about HBGary Federal?  He said the CEO's SSN and address were posted on
   Twitter.  What about all the sensitive emails that were lost?  We have no
   way of knowing what was in those emails, or how they are being used to
   make money at the expense of HBGary.  I have always agreed that they
   haven't reached a level of threat to the US, but that surely doesn't mean
   they won't.  And there are quite a few countries, organizations, and
   people below that rather high standard who could not withstand an attack,
   including an email purge of personal emails onto the web. 

   On 10/24/11 7:33 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     As far as Aurora, I haven't followed it closely. Did they ever identify
     the attackers or number of attackers? I thought the target set was the
     only thing that led people to believe the Chinese government was
     responsible.

     2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
     responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating cyber
     intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this case HUMINT is
     just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT capabilities does not
     indicate its capabilities in tracking hackers. NSA may have there own
     department for tracking hackers but it does not make it SIGINT.

     Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

     Wikipedia provides an indepth explanation on SIGINT . But in short,
     SIGINT is the capability in exploiting signals provided by communication
     devices, and what can be obtained by exploiting the signals. Combining
     computer network operations and SIGINT is innaccurate, because while
     SIGINT may be used with other intelligence disciplines in order to
     identify a hacker, it is not necessary and is no more related than any
     other intel discipline. SIGINT could help you identify a computer
     devices (not the operator) emitting a signal (wifi), and cryptanalysis,
     which is also separate from SIGINT but often used in conjunction, could
     help in providing methods to decrypt messages over a network, but SIGINT
     wouldn't obtain those messages.

     In order to exploit computer network operations, the operators involved
     are specifically trained in computer science disciplines and
     technologies tailored specifically for computer activity.

     NSA also is the primary agency for cryptanalysis. Because of
     technological demands of SIGINT and cryptanalysis, NSA has enormous
     resources in R&D, so I can see why the USG would move some CNO to NSA.
     But their SIGINT capabilities are not indicators of CNO capabilities.

     Writing the code and hacking was just a small part of necessary labor
     for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't think we are discussing
     operations on the scale of causing physical damage to extremely
     sensitive equipment . Well, this is an example of a cyber attack that
     matters, whereeas Anonymous so far has not mattered.  You chose the most
     prolific example of a cyber attack (which the whole operation consisted
     mainly outside of the cyber attack itself). Anything that falls short of
     this doesn't matter? Define what matters. None of anonymous' attacks
     have physically damaged secret Iranian nuclear facilities, but I think
     you are downplaying too much the significance of exposing corporate
     secrets, halting businesses' revenues, and embarrassing State actors by
     defacing their websites.

     On 10/24/11 5:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

       On 10/24/11 5:07 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

         On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

           1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already The USG
           arrested 10 Russian spies last year, are you willing to say
           foreign intel is not capable of conducting espionage undetected?
           No, of course not.  But I also would not argue that the SVR is so
           good to be immune to detection, as you are arguing with hackers. 
           I'm saying they are more detectable than you think.  There is no
           such thing as truly anonymous.  Everythign leaves a trail.  Will
           that trail in every instance lead to a single individual? no.  but
           it can lead to a place, an organization, and often, an
           individual. 

           2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  SIGINT is not the NSA's only
           responsibility.  SIGINT assets do not carry over to investigating
           cyber intrusion, unless you are trying to corroborate, in this
           case HUMINT is just as significant as SIGINT. A country's SIGINT
           capabilities does not indicate its capabilities in tracking
           hackers. NSA may have there own department for tracking hackers
           but it does not make it SIGINT.

           Ok, Please define SIGINT for me. 

           The question is if the attack is high priority enough.  Many
           people assume there is no attribution because there is no
           response, but I don't think that is accurate.  Many people say
           this, because no attribution is one reason for no response.  Yes,
           they do, and if they think that is the primary reason for lack of
           response, then I think they are wrong. 

           3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new
           laptop and start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack
           involves much more than a recently bought laptop.  In the same way
           there is an attack cycle for a terrorist attack or crime, there is
           one for a cyber attack.  A very simple attack may be as hard to
           trace as a nearly-random mugging in the dark in a neighborhood
           with much more serious crime and no CCTV cameras.  A more
           complicated attack, however, involves pre-operational
           surveillance, developing exploits, developing programs and code,
           gaining access, exploiting that, and carrying out an attack. 
           Discovering exploits and writing code can be done entirely
           offline, out of sight of law enforcement or intel agencies.
           Pre-operational surveillance and gaining access (the point of the
           exploit you write offline) would fit in my example. The point is,
           if you don't link your computer to identifiable information, you
           remain anonymous. Just like people use certain methods to build
           IEDs, people use certain mehtods to design programs and code for
           cyber attacks.  Over time, those methods become identifiable and
           more and more attributable. This is, for example, how AURORA is
           linked back to the Chinese.  and very specific Chinese, I may add.
           Being connected or unconnected doesn't matter, eventually you have
           to use what you develop, or copy from someone, and all of those
           things can be analyzed.   And that takes time, giving more time
           for your exposure Exposure comes from network activity with the
           target, a lot of the pre-operational phase of an attack can occur
           without network activity. Look at everything that went into
           Stuxnet as a great example, that couldn't be done with one person
           with a new laptop. Writing the code and hacking was just a small
           part of necessary labor for the Stuxnet operation. I also don't
           think we are discussing operations on the scale of causing
           physical damage to extremely sensitive equipment . Well, this is
           an example of a cyber attack that matters, whereeas Anonymous so
           far has not mattered.   All of this activity provides activity and
           evidence which helps for attribution.  Of course it is always
           possible to develop an attack, just like any other operation, that
           even the best law enforcement and national intelligence agencies
           have trouble or cannot attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that
           it's very difficult for someone to successfully use Anonymous as a
           cover and have NSA, GHQ, MID, Aman, etc, be unable to attribute
           it.  How do you know if NSA or GHQ is effective in identifying
           hackers?I don't, but I'm confident they are far better than you
           are allowing for.    They may not choose to cover it if it is
           small scale crime, however. 
           On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored
             cyber warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing
             that, since you can conduct a cyber attack without associating
             with a hacker group and still deny / cover actions on behalf of
             the State. An individual attacking US computer assets from
             China, may be working by himself or on behalf of the Chinese
             government, but unless the US has other intel on the Chinese
             government's cyber warfare activities in order to corroborate
             there is little capability to distinguish.

             It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
             operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets
             from SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual
             responsible for hacking State run servers. In the past, I have
             turned to SIGINT organizations for collections on computer
             related material, but this was due to the US being behind in
             cyber warfare, and not knowing where to assign responsibility.
             However, this has changed dramatically in the last couple of
             years.

             Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As
             an extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go
             to a Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the
             online activity to something revealing (accessing personal email
             accounts, tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop,
             etc..), and begin hacking government email accounts then never
             use the laptop again. Unless LEA could get an accurate
             description of my appearance from Starbuck's patrons or possible
             security cameras, I can not think of way to identify me.

             Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to
             these enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied
             to specific computer-related activities because of the
             difficulty in identifying individuals.

             I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown,
             would be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a
             common participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a
             State? Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that
             State agent organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter
             buddies, what signs could a LEA look for to distinguish?

             On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

               In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a
               bit)

               1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything
               actually harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't,
               but i'm very doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first
               real case where they could do some minor damage--to individual
               people, not not to an organization or anything that would come
               as a serious or strategic threat. 

               2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is
               actually pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as
               a cover, but that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could
               probably still be attributed if important enough to those
               agencies.  The recent attack on Sony actually brings this
               issue up- Whoever is calling themselves anonymous denies they
               did it.  And keep in mind how much they have claimed an
               publicized attacks in the past, even before they were carried
               out.  The attack on the Playstation Network was more
               sophisticated than anonymous' usual work (though potentially
               coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that distracted
               Sony's IT security).  But whoever did it, again, no real
               damage came of it.  Congress is holding hearings over data
               security, but this is no different than the OC groups stealing
               your credit card information.  LE will go after them, have
               some success, but the threat is not that large. 
               On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

                 Link: themeData

                 I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to
                 have a broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no
                 nothing, or almost nothing about what this group is and the
                 threat it poses. Reviewing their list of attacks
                 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in
                 most of the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin
                 Hood of the internet . The interesting thing when it comes
                 to their interactions with the cartels is the dubious role
                 they play: at the same time they can be fighting crime by
                 revealing cartel members/supporters, but they can also put
                 lives in risk.

                 However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
                 Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth,
                 can conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
                 (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

                 If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
                 websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to
                 know more about these guys. Who they are? What are they
                 interested in? How they operate? Who they have targeted so
                 far? How can I defend myself from them? In what countries
                 are they active? Should I worry about them at all? Can I use
                 them to achieve any particular goal?

                 On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                   nice.  i still think the central focus, and what
                   everything else can build off of, is that Anonymous
                   doesn't know the threat they pose to innocent people
                   caught up in the terror that is Mexico.  By focusing on
                   journalists or taxi drivers they show little understanding
                   of the situation.  This has long term implications in not
                   just Mexico.  They don't consider the consequences of
                   their actions and they act without understanding the
                   environment.  It was the same when they released
                   information on the Sony Playstation network to protest
                   Sony.  They hurt innocent people to prove a point. 

                   On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                     Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of
                     discussing possible cartel responses, the focus is on
                     what type of threat Anonymous can pose to cartels. The
                     video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing
                     personal information on cartels as well as states a
                     member had been kidnapped. I could not find any sources
                     outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being
                     kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous
                     Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be
                     an individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the
                     Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is
                     speculation.

                     Link: themeData
                     Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
                     distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on
                     government websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the
                     Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's criminal
                     cartels, including a video depicting a masked individual
                     addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the
                     most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats
                     towards the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as
                     releasing identities of taxi drivers, police,
                     politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal
                     cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a
                     fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. In
                     the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                     mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                     reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped
                     member are not met. The potential of conflict between
                     Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents a unique
                     threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out at
                     online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on
                     cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

                     What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                          o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical
                     security threat to Mexican cartels.
                          o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to
                     exploit online media
                          o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico
                     to lash out at cartels

                     While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to
                     pose a threat
                          o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to
                     possess identifiable information on cartel members
                          o     It is unknown what information Anonymous
                     could acquire on cartels
                          o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
                     communications, identifiable information on cartels
                     members have to be considered in the realm of
                     possibilities for
                                 Anonymous
                                 o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability
                     to reveal illicit online activity (child pornography
                     rings)

                     Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
                     ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
                     result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
                     limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting
                     in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any
                     possible retribution. They may not even know the impact
                     of any online assault of cartels.
                          o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
                     journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not
                     understand some of these individuals are forced to
                     collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are
                     often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
                     halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals
                     will not have a significant impact on cartel            
                           operations. Politicans have been accused of
                     working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor)
                     before, however there has yet to be any consequences
                     from this.
                          o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the
                     extent cartels are willing to go protect their
                     operations.
                             o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                             o    Cartels have reached out to the computer
                     science community before, coercing computer science
                     majors into working for them.
                             o    This provides the cartels with the
                     possibility of discovering hackers within Mexico.

                      

                     On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                       Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the
                       idea but there are several issues to address and fix
                       here.

                       These are the bullets of my main analytical concern
                       with the discussion:

                            o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why.
                       that's fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                            o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                       difference between stealing bank records from
                       government computers and overloading www.loszetas.com
                       main page.
                            o     There's no thought out process of what sort
                       of information could anon have on the cartels. What
                       kind of info is kept online and accessible to
                       potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
                       identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
                       politicians and businessmen who need to worry about
                       what anon is going to be saying. Think about why the
                       bloggers and media were killed in previous instances.
                       Was it because they revealed operational details,
                       because they acted as informants, because they exposed
                       links with officials or because they somehow sullied
                       the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of
                       information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
                            o     Once you identify this info - think about
                       if anon can realistically access it and disseminate it
                       so it causes a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have
                       any intelligence capacity except for the technical
                       ability by a very small number of its members to
                       infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal
                       information. Now what kind of information would a
                       cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
                       internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
                       information be found? Government databases? Once we
                       know what kind of information is accessible, we can
                       also know more about the consequences of
                       dissemination.
                            o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel?
                       Sufficient to trace back attacks? If it's not, there
                       risks to be a lot of killings done by people who may
                       not understand the difference between an anon hacker
                       and a blogger.

                       On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                         wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                         -------- Original Message --------

                          Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                             Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                             From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                         Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                               To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                         you've got some of the issues here, but this is
                         going to need a lot more work

                         You need to lay out:

                         a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your
                         trigger section is unclear
                         b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence
                         is, and therefore their vulnerabilities and
                         capabilities
                         c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high
                         security anything
                         d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to
                         kill anyone who breaches their systems or exposes
                         their connections

                         I also just want to point out that we have
                         reasonable reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very
                         least has some significant levels of sophistication
                         in their online presence, to include the use of
                         cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
                         is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also
                         conduct business online, in a protected fashion.

                         Karen Hooper
                         Latin America Analyst
                         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                         c: 512.750.7234
                         STRATFOR
                         www.stratfor.com
                         On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                         On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                         Link: themeData

                         Trigger

                         Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy,
                         hackers. Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group
                         famous for...?, lashed out at drug cartels via the
                         Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
                         criminal cartels, including a video released
                         depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a
                         screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent video
                         release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                         criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing
                         identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers,
                         police, politicians, and journalists who collude
                         with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los
                         Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
                         face consequences. The potential of conflict between
                         Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
                         unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly
                         different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas
                         leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have
                         little experience in handling. i believe that
                         Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
                         not believe for a second that the cartels have no
                         experience with hackers.

                          

                         In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
                         was mentioned as a day cartels could expect
                         Anonymous' reaction if their demands of releasing a
                         kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up
                         front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is
                         threatening to hit back. Provide enough details so
                         we understand who this guy is and why/how he was
                         abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of
                         possessing revealing information on cartel members
                         and operations are true, cartels will likely respond
                         with violence against individuals revealed as
                         opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous
                         members?. It also is likely that public disclosure
                         of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force
                         the GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat
                         complexity i don't understand what this means. You
                         mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
                         effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
                         against Anonymous remains unanswered . However,
                         cartels will continue their threats against any
                         individual using online media WC.... you mean tools?
                         or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers here.
                         against the cartels.

                          

                         The Battle Space

                         Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two
                         separate realities from each other. Anonymous
                         operates solely in sphere of the computer networks.
                         Anonymous does not experience geographical
                         boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
                         exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely
                         true. They are physical people tho live in the real
                         world. They have names and addresses - although most
                         of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power
                         base consists of their technical capabilities in
                         hacking. Any information connected to the Internet
                         is vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying
                         the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst
                         of Mexico's population could be quite difficult.
                          Remember that most of what Anonymous has done are
                         DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big
                         company with a website that brings in revenue, but
                         it does not really matter if you don't run
                         operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money
                         via e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on
                         the web than the jihadists.)

                         Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but
                         it's power base consists of the perceived anonymity
                         that its members believe themselves to have, real or
                         otherwise, by operating through the internet. This
                         gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
                         and everything to practice general dickery. As the
                         popular meme goes, anonymity + audience = troll.
                         Only a fraction of the large web of people who
                         identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of
                         serious IT capability. 

                         The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so
                         far has been from targeted arrests by Law
                         Enforcement Agencies.

                         The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the
                         streets in US and Mexican cities. They are run as a
                         business, always looking to maximize profits and
                         expand. But they are bricks and mortar commerce.
                         Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
                         and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that
                         from insight. There is no reason to assume that Los
                         Zetas don't have a similar capacity.  Their power
                         base is built by large amounts of revenue and
                         escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas,
                         are experienced in facing different types of
                         threats. Cartels are always suffering at the hands
                         of cartel on cartel violence. While battling each
                         other, cartels still face arrests by Law Enforcement
                         Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in
                         the flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted
                         media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
                         bloggers in order to cover details of their
                         operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng
                         for this discussion. You need to focus on the
                         possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just
                         assume they have no cyber presence.

                          

                         Anonymous' Weapons

                         Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous'
                         actions against criminal cartels has yet to be seen.
                         Anonymous' only ability to combat cartels lay in
                         information operations, mainly disseminating
                         sensitive information on cartels and propagating
                         anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced
                         websites in Mexico you mean so far and that we know
                         of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
                         cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The
                         significance of a targeted information operations
                         campaign by technically elite individuals can not be
                         overlooked should not be underestimated. Cartels
                         view main stream media outlets and social media
                         blogs as such a threat to their operations, that
                         they have continued to target journalists and
                         bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas
                         was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly,
                         on the body of a blogger. The message threatened any
                         users who denounce cartels on blogging websites.
                         getting repetitive here, and it's not really
                         addressing the subheading

                         As stated earlier, any information connected to the
                         internet risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is
                         ample reason to suggest Anonymous is capable of
                         possessing information they threaten to release. By
                         releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
                         Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of
                         those individuals. Anonymous's ability to
                         disseminate sensitive information is limited by what
                         is available via the Internet. Government computers
                         connected to the Internet should always be
                         considered a possibility of an attack. However, as
                         with the compartmentalized nature of the US
                         governments computer networks, information available
                         to Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy
                         to acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This
                         isn't clear at all

                          

                         Cartel's Defense

                                     A counter response to the video? by the
                         cartels has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous'
                         claims of a kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest
                         Los Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by
                         hackers so... how has there not been a counter
                         response? also this undermines your statements above
                         about how Anonymous is soley internet based, and
                         underlines the vulnerabilities of associated
                         members. How did they find teh Anonymous member? The
                         answer to that could very well give you some
                         indication to the technical ability of the cartels .
                         As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
                         wide web , the cartels will face a number of
                         challenges which rarely are posed for them Again,
                         how do you know? The USG has whole agencies
                         dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can
                         assume (and we have good intel indicating that) they
                         are working on disrupting the cartels.. Hackers
                         threatening cartels, can operate in any region of
                         the world. Personal information including locations
                         is only available if a hacker chooses to divulge it
                         or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
                         figure it out. Hackers don't only work for
                         Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with
                         their online enemy, if they can physically reach out
                         to them. Or start employing hackers of their own
                         under their payroll? Stranger things have happened,
                         Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                                     Cartels have been known to coerce the
                         services of Mexican citizens with a technical
                         background. Recruiting the help of computer science
                         majors through personal threats has been reported in
                         the past where? What cartels? reported where?. 
                         Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence
                         and drug trafficking, they will likely need the
                         assistance of technical experts to help combat any
                         threat by computer hackers.  While identifying
                         bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it
                         is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any
                         hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
                         enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more
                         technical experience and resources than cartels,
                         struggle to find hackers through investigations. A)
                         How do you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the
                         guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that
                         not all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                                     In order to compete with an online foe,
                         cartels will likely continue counter tactics they
                         are most familiar with, brute force. Cartels are
                         still capable of their HUMINT operations within
                         Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't
                         be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
                         communities will likely be targeted and interrogated
                         by cartel members.  Narco banners and public display
                         of violence will likely continue to be used to scare
                         online media into submission i'm not really seeing
                         the online media-international hacking group
                         connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
                         inflict harm, is something computer hackers have
                         unlikely encountered before in their life. Whether
                         the fear of cartel violence softens the confidence
                         of Anonymous will remain to be seen until cartels
                         are able to seek out and capture members of the
                         hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the
                         collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off any
                         inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

               --

               Sean Noonan

               Tactical Analyst

               Office: +1 512-279-9479

               Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

               Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

               www.stratfor.com

           --

           Sean Noonan

           Tactical Analyst

           Office: +1 512-279-9479

           Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

           Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

           www.stratfor.com

       --

       Sean Noonan

       Tactical Analyst

       Office: +1 512-279-9479

       Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

       Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

       www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-25 02:47:49",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1305171_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1307791,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1307791_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1318720,"Re: [Fwd: Fred letter]
","   My edits, incorporating Matt's edits:

   Figuring out who Fred Burton is and what he does at STRATFOR isn't easy.
   His first book was called Ghost and it's a fitting title for him.

    

   Inside of STRATFOR, Fred is Chief Security Officer. He oversees a group we
   call \"tactical intelligence.\" Tactical intelligence sweats the small
   things because small things frequently turn out not to be small at all. So
   if it is something that goes boom, something that involves mayhem,
   something where people disappear, kill each other or smuggle drugs-Fred
   and his team work on it. At first glance, you may think such short-term
   details don't belong at STRATFOR, since our focus is the big picture of
   geopolitics. But those are the details that keep us honest, that can throw
   a wrench into our entire big picture assessment, forcing us to
   re-evaluate. Fred and his team constantly challenge our assumptions.

    

   To do this, Fred uses a skill set and experiences few people in the world
   possess. He began as a cop, and then moved on to the Department of State
   Security service, which protects foreign diplomats in the United States
   and American diplomats abroad. During his time in DSS, Fred got involved
   in investigations himself, in particular capturing Ramsey Youssef, the
   terrorist who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.

    

   He's written a new book (didn't realize Fred could write; always thought
   his specialty was wisecracking at the coffee station) that's called
   \"Chasing Shadows.\" It's about the unsolved murder of an Israeli air
   attache in the 1970s in Washington and Fred's decades-long quest to solve
   it. The case sheds light on how intelligence services operate-and how
   nations play hardball with each other. It starts with the tactical details
   and builds up to the big picture of international relations, much like the
   way our tactical and geopolitical teams work together.

    

   Despite his elusive persona, Fred's more than a colleague. He's my friend
   and he covers my back-or, more precisely, he thinks I can't cover my back
   myself. Either way he's a good man and STRATFOR is lucky to have him. I
   highly recommend this book because in a fluid and personable fashion it
   tells an important story from 1973 with a lasting effect on geopolitics
   today.

    

   If you enjoy the book, you'll love the work Fred & his team produce at
   STRATFOR.... [sales pitch here?]

   On 3/7/11 4:50 PM, Matthew Solomon wrote:

     My cut at George's letter

     Figuring out who Fred Burton is and what he does isn't easy.  His first
     book was called Ghost and it's a fitting title for him.

      

     Inside of STRATFOR, Fred is Chief Security Officer. He oversees our
     security analysis, which is part of a division of the company we call
     \"tactical intelligence.  Tactical sweats the small stuff, because small
     stuff frequently turns out to be not small at all. If something goes
     boom, something involves mayhem, something makes people disappear-Fred
     and his team in tactical intelligence work on it. At first glance you
     may think this doesn't belong at STRATFOR, our focus being the big
     picture, geopolitics and the like. But the big picture can't be
     understood without the individual smaller pieces, and sometimes those
     little things are clues the ordinary mind would have never suspected.

      

     To do this, Fred uses a skill set and experiences few other people in
     the world possess. During his time in DSS, Fred ran a program that paid
     bounties to those who turned in terrorists. He eventually got involved
     in investigations himself, in particular capturing Ramsey Youssef, the
     terrorist who initially bombed the World Trade Center in 1993.

      

     He's written a new book (didn't realize Fred could write; always thought
     his specialty was wisecracking at the coffee machine) that's called
     \"Chasing Shadows.\" It's about the unsolved assassination of an Israeli
     air attache in the 1970s and how the case's unraveling sheds light on
     the manner in which intelligence services operate-and therefore how they
     play hardball with each other. It starts with small things and builds to
     the big things; similar to the way our security team builds its
     analysis.

      

     Despite his elusive persona and frequent disappearing acts, personally
     Fred's more than a colleague. He's a friend and contributes a lot to
     this organization. Either way he's a good man and STRATFOR is lucky to
     have him. I recommend you read this book because, in a fluid and
     personable fashion it tells an important story and gives you a sense
     what STRATFOR does behind the scenes and how it does it. It is an
     interesting insight into how we think and things we worry about that
     might surprise you.

     On 3/7/11 4:39 PM, Megan Headley wrote:

       Rodger's response to why we have Fred: \"eye candy\"

       On 3/7/11 3:03 PM, Darryl O'Connor wrote:

         fyi

     --

     Matthew Solomon
     Online Sales Manager
     STRATFOR

     T: 512-744-4300 ext 4095
     F: 512-744-4334
     C: 817-271-7709
     www.stratfor.com
","2011-03-08 00:15:49",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1318720_re-fwd-fred-letter-.html","megan.headley@stratfor.com","","oconnor@stratfor.com,matthew.solomon@stratfor.com",""
1339369,"Anonymous vs. Zetas Amid Mexico's Cartel Violence
","    Stratfor logo                                                             
   Anonymous vs. Zetas Amid Mexico's Cartel Violence                          
                                                                              
    November 2, 2011                                                          
                                                                              
    Readers Comment on STRATFOR Reports                                       
                                                                              
    By Scott Stewart                                                          
                                                                              
    The online activist collective Anonymous posted a message on the          
    Internet on Oct. 31 saying it would continue its campaign against         
    Mexican criminal cartels and their government supporters despite the      
    risks.                                                                    
                                                                              
    The message urged inexperienced activists, who might not be practicing    
    proper online security measures, to abstain from participating. It also   
    urged individuals associated with Anonymous in Mexico not to conduct      
    physical pamphlet drops, participate in protests, wear or purchase Guy    
    Fawkes masks, or use Guy Fawkes imagery in their Internet or              
    physical-world activities. Guy Fawkes was a British Roman Catholic        
    conspirator involved in a plot to bomb the British Parliament on Nov. 5,  
    1605. The British celebrate the plot's failure as Guy Fawkes Day each     
    Nov. 5. In modern times, the day has come to have special meaning for     
    anarchists. Since 2006, the style of the Guy Fawkes mask used in the      
    movie \"V for Vendetta\" has become something of an anarchist icon in the   
    United Kingdom and elsewhere.                                             
                                                                              
    Related Video                                                             
      * [IMG] Dispatch: Anonymous' Online Tactics Against Mexican Cartels     
                                                                              
    It was no coincidence, then, that in an Oct. 6 video Anonymous activists  
    set Nov. 5 as the deadline for Los Zetas to release an Anonymous          
    associate allegedly kidnapped in Veracruz. The associate reportedly was   
    abducted during an Anonymous leaflet campaign called \"Operation           
    Paperstorm.\"                                                              
                                                                              
    The Oct. 31 message acknowledged that the operation against Los Zetas,    
    dubbed \"Operation Cartel,\" would be dangerous. It noted that some         
    members of the collective would form a group of trusted associates to     
    participate in a special task force to execute the operation. It asked    
    supporters to pass information pertaining to drug trafficking to the      
    Operation Cartel task force for publication on the Internet via a         
    software tool developed by Anonymous that permits the anonymous passing   
    of information.                                                           
                                                                              
    When discussing Anonymous, it is important to remember that Anonymous is  
    not a hierarchical organization, but rather a collective of activists.    
    Individuals who choose to associate themselves with the collective        
    frequently disagree over issues addressed by the collective and are free  
    to choose which actions to support and/or participate in.                 
                                                                              
    With Nov. 5 approaching, and at least some elements of Anonymous not      
    backing down on their threats to Los Zetas, we thought it would be        
    useful to provide some context to the present conflict between Anonymous  
    and Los Zetas and to address some of its potential implications.          
                                                                              
     Context                                                                  
                                                                              
    The Mexican port city of Veracruz has been the epicenter of this event.   
    Veracruz has been a busy place over the past few months in terms of       
    Mexico's cartel wars. The port serves as a critical transportation hub    
    for Los Zetas narcotics smuggling. Because of this, STRATFOR has          
    identified Veracruz as a bellwether for determining Los Zetas'            
    trajectory in the coming months.                                          
                                                                              
    In a major recent development in Veracruz, the Sinaloa cartel began an    
    offensive into the Zetas stronghold using the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva     
    Generacion (CJNG), which, under the name \"Matazetas\" (Spanish for \"Zeta   
    killers\"), conducted high-profile body dumps of more than 50 alleged      
    low-level Zetas operatives on Sept. 20 and Sept. 22. On Oct. 25, Mexican  
    marines arrested Carlos Arturo Pitalua-Carillo, also known as \"El Bam     
    Bam,\" who was the Zetas' plaza boss in Veracruz. The Zetas in Veracruz    
    thus are feeling pressure from both the Mexican government and the CJNG.  
                                                                              
    The Anonymous Internet collective entered this dynamic in August with     
    its activities in Veracruz. It is common knowledge that members of        
    local, state and federal governments in Mexico support various cartel     
    groups. In the state of Veracruz, it is generally believed that some      
    members of the state government support Los Zetas, the dominant cartel    
    there. In response to this corruption, some who have associated           
    themselves with Anonymous launched Operation Paperstorm. These activists  
    distributed leaflets throughout Veracruz denouncing the state government  
    for supporting Los Zetas. They conducted leaflet distributions Aug. 13,   
    Aug. 20 and Aug. 29. They also released videos on the Internet on Aug.    
    26 and Aug. 29 condemning the Veracruz state government.                  
                                                                              
    Activities outside Veracruz also played a part in setting the stage. On   
    Sept. 13, the bodies of two people who had been tortured and killed were  
    hung from a pedestrian overpass in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas state. Signs  
    left with the bodies said Los Zetas had killed the pair because they had  
    posted information pertaining to the Zetas on blogs that specialize in    
    reporting on the Mexican cartels. On Sept. 26, the decapitated body of    
    Marisol Macias Castaneda was found in a park in Nuevo Laredo. Macias,     
    who worked for a local newspaper, allegedly posted on cartel blogs using  
    the nickname \"Laredo Girl.\" A message found with her body said the Zetas  
    killed her due to her online activities.                                  
                                                                              
    Following the death of Laredo Girl, Anonymous claimed responsibility for  
    a distributed denial of service attack against the official website of    
    the state of Veracruz. Although her murder occurred outside of the        
    state, Anonymous said its attack on the Veracruz website was in response  
    to Laredo Girl's death. This indicates that activists understand that     
    Los Zetas are active in both areas and suggests that Veracruz             
    state-based activists are driving the Anonymous campaign against Los      
    Zetas.                                                                    
                                                                              
    Significantly, some individuals associated with Anonymous already were    
    unhappy with the state of Veracruz over its decision to prosecute two     
    individuals who had posted kidnapping reports on Twitter on Aug. 25 that  
    proved false. According to the reports, a group of children had been      
    abducted from a Veracruz school. The inaccurate reports allegedly caused  
    some two dozen traffic accidents as terrified parents rushed to the       
    school to check on their children. The so-called Twitter terrorists       
    initially were charged with offenses that could have carried a 30-year    
    sentence. Some associated with Anonymous, which has absolute freedom of   
    speech on the Internet as one of its foundational principles, took        
    umbrage at the prospect of such stiff penalties - especially given the    
    stark contrast with the impunity enjoyed by many cartel figures in        
    Mexico.                                                                   
                                                                              
    STRATFOR began to focus on the story following the Oct. 6 release of the  
    video in which Anonymous activists threatened to release information      
    about individuals cooperating with Los Zetas if the Zetas did not         
    release the Anonymous activist kidnapped during Operation Paperstorm. In  
    light of the approaching Nov. 5 deadline, we published an analysis of     
    the topic on Oct. 28; the topic subsequently received a great deal of     
    media coverage.                                                           
                                                                              
    This publicity has generated a very interesting response from Anonymous   
    that emphasizes that it is a collective, not an organization. Some        
    Anonymous activists began to back off the issue, erasing online user      
    accounts formerly associated with the campaign, suggesting the operation  
    against Los Zetas had been a hoax and claiming that no activist had been  
    kidnapped. Other activists suggested that the campaign was dangerous,     
    ill-advised and should be suspended. Still other activists became more    
    strident and determined in their posts, urging that the campaign          
    continue. As noted, Anonymous' collective nature means activists can      
    select the actions they participate in, including Operation Cartel. It    
    would only take one dedicated individual to continue the operation.       
                                                                              
    The will to continue was manifested Oct. 29 with the hacking of the       
    personal website of Gustavo Rosario Torres, the former attorney general   
    of the Mexican state of Tabasco. The site was defaced with a message      
    from Anonymous Mexico stating that Rosario is a Zeta. Rosario has long    
    been accused in the Mexican and international media of protecting Los     
    Zetas, and videos long have circulated on YouTube making the same         
    charge. The hacking of his website thus did not provide any startling     
    revelation; Anonymous will have to uncover and publish original and       
    timely information if it hopes to do much damage to Los Zetas.            
                                                                              
    The determination by some activists to continue the operation against     
    Los Zetas also was reflected in the tone of the Oct. 31 message. Some     
    activists associated with Anonymous clearly feel compelled to continue    
    with the campaign over what they have characterized as an outpouring of   
    public support in the wake of the media coverage. According to their      
    Oct. 31 video statement:                                                  
                                                                              
      \"We received many expressions of support and solidarity as well as the  
      voices of people crying for help. We must remember that we are on the   
      side of the people, and we cannot let down the people, especially in    
      critical moments like the one they currently live in.\"                  
                                                                              
    We therefore anticipate that some Anonymous activists will continue the   
    campaign. We also believe that Los Zetas will respond.                    
                                                                              
     Blowback                                                                 
                                                                              
    Mexico's various cartels long have used the Internet to trumpet their     
    triumphs on the battlefield and to taunt and even degrade their enemies.  
    The cartels have posted videos of the torture, execution and desecration  
    of the corpses of rivals. They also frequently monitor narcoblogs and     
    sometimes even post on them. As demonstrated by the September blogger     
    killings in Nuevo Laredo, Los Zetas appear to possess at least some       
    rudimentary capability to trace online activity to people in the          
    physical world. They are known to employ their own team of dedicated      
    cyber experts and to have sources within the Mexican government.          
                                                                              
    In addition to technical intelligence, the Zetas can use old-fashioned    
    human intelligence to track down their online enemies. People sometimes   
    discuss their online identities with family and friends, and such         
    information can be overheard and passed to Los Zetas in return for        
    money. This danger was recognized in the Oct. 31 video from Anonymous     
    that urges participants in their campaign not to discuss their            
    activities with anyone.                                                   
                                                                              
    In past Anonymous actions, like the December 2010 attack against PayPal   
    after the WikiLeaks scandal broke, the U.S. and British governments       
    arrested numerous individuals associated with Anonymous who allegedly     
    participated in the attacks. In June 2011, Turkey arrested dozens of      
    activists associated with Anonymous actions conducted against the         
    Turkish government in response to its plan to establish a national        
    Internet-filtering system. This indicates that some activists associated  
    with Anonymous are not nearly as anonymous as they would like to be.      
    Every action on the Internet leaves some sort of trail, making it very    
    difficult to be truly anonymous.                                          
                                                                              
    Like other Mexican cartels, Los Zetas do not take affronts lightly. Even  
    if Anonymous cannot provide information that damages Los Zetas smuggling  
    operations, the very fact that the collective has decided publicly to     
    challenge Los Zetas will result in some sort of response. The big         
    question is whether the Zetas possess the capability to trace the         
    organizers of the Anonymous action?                                       
                                                                              
    One challenge with tracking an entity such as Anonymous is that it is     
    intentionally amorphous. It is also as transnational as the Internet,     
    and it would be unsurprising if many of those chosen to participate in    
    the operation against Los Zetas are located in the United Sates, Europe   
    and other areas that are outside the Zetas' immediate reach.              
                                                                              
    The amorphous nature of Anonymous can also cut the other way, however.    
    If Los Zetas abduct and execute random patrons at an Internet cafe,       
    behead them and place Guy Fawkes masks on their heads, it will be very    
    difficult to prove that they were not associated with Anonymous. Los      
    Zetas also could execute random people and claim they had provided        
    Anonymous with information in order to intimidate people from actually    
    cooperating with Anonymous. As Anonymous noted in its Oct. 31 video,      
    this is dangerous business indeed.                                        
                                                                              
     The Big Picture                                                          
                                                                              
    How the Mexican public reacts to the Anonymous operation must be          
    watched. The criminal cartels and their violence have deeply affected     
    many people in Mexico's middle and upper classes. STRATFOR talks to many  
    people in Mexico who fear that they or a family member will be            
    kidnapped. In many communities, especially places like Ciudad Juarez,     
    Torreon, Monterrey and Veracruz, businessmen find themselves in a         
    terrible bind. They face ever-increasing extortion demands from the       
    cartels while their business revenues dwindle because the violence        
    associated with those same cartels has frightened people into not going   
    out. This is forcing many small businesses to close. It also is creating  
    a great deal of frustration and resentment.                               
                                                                              
    At the same time, Mexico has become one of the most dangerous countries   
    in the world for journalists, and many media organizations practice       
    heavy self-censorship to protect themselves. In the wake of the           
    September blogger killings, some of the narcoblogs, like Blog del Narco,  
    have exhibited strong signs of self-censorship inspired by fear. As a     
    result, many Mexicans believe the mainstream media are not of any real    
    assistance in the face of cartel violence.                                
                                                                              
    Mexican citizens also are frustrated with their government, which, as     
    noted, is well-known for corruption. This sentiment is feeding            
    Anonymous' original campaign in Veracruz. This frustration even has led   
    some people to begin discussing the creation of vigilante groups to       
    fight the cartels - though this has been attempted before in Mexico. As   
    we saw in the case of La Familia Michoacana, which began as such a        
    vigilante group, vigilantism frequently does not end well.                
                                                                              
    This is where Anonymous may fit in. With Mexican citizens unable to rely  
    on their government, the media or even armed vigilante groups for         
    assistance, they may embrace Anonymous, coming to view its form of        
    cybervigilantism as an outlet for their frustration. If Anonymous is      
    perceived as a safe way to pass information pertaining to cartel          
    activities, we may see people from all over the country begin to share    
    intelligence. Such human intelligence could very well prove to be far     
    more damaging to the cartels than any information Anonymous activists     
    can dredge up electronically. As this operation is becoming more widely   
    publicized, the pool of people outside Mexico who might wish to           
    participate will likely grow. The number of people inside Mexico who      
    wish to provide information might grow as well.                           
                                                                              
    Anonymous has taken on many powerful entities in the past, such as major  
    transnational corporations and governments. But the repercussions from    
    participating in such operations were never as grave for online           
    activists as they are in this case. Being identified and detained by      
    Scotland Yard or the FBI is a far different situation than being          
    identified and detained by Los Zetas.                                     
                                                                              
    Give us your thoughts                          Read comments on           
    on this report                                 other reports              
                                                                              
    For Publication                                Reader Comments            
                                                                              
    Not For Publication                                                       
                                                                              
    Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by   
    prominently displaying the following sentence at the beginning or end of  
    the report, including the hyperlink to STRATFOR:                          
                                                                              
    \"This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR\"                  
    Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us                                
    (c) Copyright 2011 Stratfor. All rights reserved.                         
","2011-11-03 15:27:01",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1339369_anonymous-vs-zetas-amid-mexico-s-cartel-violence-.html","noreply@stratfor.com","mailto:stratforaustin@stratfor.com","allstratfor@stratfor.com",""
1346433,"Dispatch: Mainland China's \"Occupy Wall Street\" Reaction
","    Stratfor logo                                                             
   Dispatch: Mainland China's \"Occupy Wall Street\" Reaction                   
                                                                              
    October 19, 2011 | 2044 GMT                                               
    Click on image below to watch video:                                      
    [IMG]                                                                     
                                                                              
    China Director Jennifer Richmond explains why the \"Occupy Wall Street\"    
    movement failed to gain traction in mainland China.                       
                                                                              
       Editor*s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition      
       technology. Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete        
       accuracy.                                                              
                                                                              
    Related Links                                                             
      * China Political Memo: Wenzhou Backs Away from the `Wenzhou Model'     
      * The Effects of Chinese Economic Development on Illicit Trade          
      * China Political Memo: Governmental Reforms for Economic Problems?     
                                                                              
    The \"Occupy Wall Street\" movement has gone global and there have even     
    been attempts to capitalize on this movement in various Chinese cities.   
    The \"Occupy China\" movement, however, has failed to gain traction on the  
    mainland.                                                                 
                                                                              
    We really didn't expect to see this movement transfer to mainland China;  
    however, given the Jasmine protests earlier this year, there were many    
    who were waiting to see whether or not this movement could be             
    rejuvenated by the global call to action. The global Occupy movement      
    lacks a nucleus or leadership. Despite a common theme of corporate        
    greed, there is very little direction on how to proceed and, under these  
    circumstances, we have seen no contagion effect in mainland China.        
                                                                              
    However, the Tiananmen protests in 1989 also started with very little     
    leadership or direction, and many Chinese activists that I've spoken      
    with feel that all that is needed is a spark to ignite a fire. After      
    all, there are plenty of protests localized daily in China, revolving     
    around issues such as land grabs, the environment and even corruption.    
                                                                              
    The Jasmine Movement provided a spark for organized action in China;      
    however, it quickly fizzled under an aggressive government response. The  
    Occupy China movement hasn't even gotten that far. While it is not        
    unforeseeable for a small movement to gain momentum in China, the         
    problem with both the Jasmine and the Occupy movements are that neither   
    were home-grown.                                                          
                                                                              
    Although the Jasmine movement was spearheaded by Chinese, it was done so  
    from overseas. The Occupy movement had supporters and organizers within   
    China, but the concept was foreign-generated.                             
                                                                              
    Moreover, the Chinese government and media has actually acknowledged the  
    Occupy movement in the U.S. and in the EU, taking the opportunity to      
    point out the failures of Wall Street and capitalism, while at the same   
    time, censoring any indication of an Occupy China movement. Also, many    
    Chinese do not have access to the social Internet sites that have helped  
    to ignite these movements in Western countries, namely Facebook. And      
    those that do, find this information quickly scrubbed off of similar      
    Chinese sites.                                                            
                                                                              
    Ultimately, the Chinese, even those that want change, are wary of         
    foreign influences. Anything emanating from outside of the state will be  
    used by the state to highlight foreign interference. That said the        
    domestic wealth gap and its ensuing tensions could generate a homegrown   
    movement that would threaten Beijing much more so than any Occupy Wall    
    Street movement could muster.                                             
                                                                              
    Click for more videos                                                     
                                                                              
    Give us your thoughts                          Read comments on           
    on this report                                 other reports              
                                                                              
    For Publication                                Reader Comments            
                                                                              
    Not For Publication                                                       
                                                                              
    This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with          
    attribution to www.stratfor.com                                           
    Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us                                
    (c) Copyright 2011 Stratfor. All rights reserved.                         
","2011-10-19 23:03:43",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1346433_dispatch-mainland-china-s-occupy-wall-street-reaction-.html","noreply@stratfor.com","","tim.duke@stratfor.com",""
1378798,"Re: [Eurasia] Athens' Indignants threaten political system
","   You know this happened in Mexico after the last Presidential elections and
   Calderon just let them sit there for a year and a half.

   On 6/3/11 8:26 AM, Benjamin Preisler wrote:

     Depends on their numbers. If they get a massive group of people (very
     unlikely of course) just sitting around somewhere then it'll matter to
     some extent and at some point. But other than that you're right as long
     as they don't start rioting a bit they'll just be ignored under some
     kind of a number threshold.

     Look at Spain though, let's assume they get a few (in the high) hundreds
     for the nights and then thousands during the day. They'll force some
     kind of a reaction (especially because the Greek police cannot empty
     that square for political reasons). No idea what kind of number
     potential we're talking about with these guys though.

     On 06/03/2011 02:14 PM, Marko Papic wrote:

       Ok, so... If they refuse to vote for anyone and dont have the balls to
       riot, how do they matter? 
       It is a legit question. I am asking. 

       On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:08 AM, Benjamin Preisler
       <ben.preisler@stratfor.com> wrote:

 To Ethnos - Greece. For more than a week now the \"indignant
 citizens\" movement has been demonstrating in Athens against the
 government's drastic austerity measures. The protests are a
 symptom of a major crisis of the political system in which the
 great majority of citizens have lost faith in the parties,
 writes the left-liberal daily To Ethnos: \"Already the parties
 are discussing whether this phenomenon represents a threat to
 the political system, while others believe it is just an
 insignificant expression of anger - without political weight or
 serious repercussions. ... The people who have gathered at
 Athens' main square reject the entire structure of the system:
 the parties, trade unions, media and institutions. They are
 making the point that they won't vote for the [socialist ruling
 party] Pasok, or the [liberal-conservative opposition party] Nea
 Dimokratia, nor for the communist KKE party or the radical left
 coalition Syriza. This is why the parties are not taking a
 positive view of the demonstrators.\" (02/06/2011) +++
 http://www.ethnos.gr/article.asp?catid=22792&subid=2&pubid=63111062


 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19

 --
 Marko Papic
 Senior Analyst
 STRATFOR
 + 1-512-744-4094 (O)
 + 1-512-905-3091 (C)
 221 W. 6th St, Ste. 400
 Austin, TX 78701 - USA
 www.stratfor.com
 @marko_papic
","2011-06-03 15:50:23",1,"2011-03-05 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1378798_re-eurasia-athens-indignants-threaten-political-system-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:eurasia@stratfor.com","eurasia@stratfor.com,ben.preisler@stratfor.com",""
1379157,"Re: [Eurasia] Athens' Indignants threaten political system
","   Depends on their numbers. If they get a massive group of people (very
   unlikely of course) just sitting around somewhere then it'll matter to
   some extent and at some point. But other than that you're right as long as
   they don't start rioting a bit they'll just be ignored under some kind of
   a number threshold.

   Look at Spain though, let's assume they get a few (in the high) hundreds
   for the nights and then thousands during the day. They'll force some kind
   of a reaction (especially because the Greek police cannot empty that
   square for political reasons). No idea what kind of number potential we're
   talking about with these guys though.

   On 06/03/2011 02:14 PM, Marko Papic wrote:

     Ok, so... If they refuse to vote for anyone and dont have the balls to
     riot, how do they matter? 
     It is a legit question. I am asking. 

     On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:08 AM, Benjamin Preisler
     <ben.preisler@stratfor.com> wrote:

 To Ethnos - Greece. For more than a week now the \"indignant
 citizens\" movement has been demonstrating in Athens against the
 government's drastic austerity measures. The protests are a
 symptom of a major crisis of the political system in which the
 great majority of citizens have lost faith in the parties,
 writes the left-liberal daily To Ethnos: \"Already the parties
 are discussing whether this phenomenon represents a threat to
 the political system, while others believe it is just an
 insignificant expression of anger - without political weight or
 serious repercussions. ... The people who have gathered at
 Athens' main square reject the entire structure of the system:
 the parties, trade unions, media and institutions. They are
 making the point that they won't vote for the [socialist ruling
 party] Pasok, or the [liberal-conservative opposition party] Nea
 Dimokratia, nor for the communist KKE party or the radical left
 coalition Syriza. This is why the parties are not taking a
 positive view of the demonstrators.\" (02/06/2011) +++
 http://www.ethnos.gr/article.asp?catid=22792&subid=2&pubid=63111062


 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19
","2011-06-03 15:26:31",1,"2011-03-05 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1379157_re-eurasia-athens-indignants-threaten-political-system-.html","ben.preisler@stratfor.com","mailto:eurasia@stratfor.com","eurasia@stratfor.com",""
1409763,"Re: Follow Up from teleconference last week
","   Steve,
   I am in Kentucky threw Wednesday and in back to back meetings Thursday, so
   Friday is the first time I can meet.  In the meantime, I know Rob and
   Holly have worked on many of those tasks so hopefully we will have
   everything at least identified regarding assignment by Friday.
   -Don
   Don R. Kuykendall 
   President & Chief Financial Officer 
   STRATFOR 
   512.744.4314 phone 
   512.744.4334 fax 
   kuykendall@stratfor.com 
     
   _______________________ 
     
   http://www.stratfor.com 
   STRATFOR 
   221 W. 6th Street 
   Suite 400 
   Austin, Texas 78701 
   From: Stephen Feldhaus <sf@feldhauslaw.com>
   Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 12:03:00 -0400
   To: Holly Sparkman <hsparkman@roriesparkman.com>
   Cc: Don Kuykendall <kuykendall@stratfor.com>, Rob Bassetti
   <rob.bassetti@stratfor.com>, 'Dan Rorie' <drorie@roriesparkman.com>
   Subject: RE: Follow Up from teleconference last week

   Don,

    

   Here is the flow chart and the closing checklist.

    

   My best days next week are Tuesday after 9 Texas time and Wednesday before
   11 Texas time.

    

   I am also attaching the information that I sent to Rob and Don on April 29
   regarding the information we need to gather to be able to list all the
   contracts that we are going to assign to the new operating LLC.  We also
   need this list in order to be able to review the contracts to determine
   whether we need to obtain the approval of any of our customers/etc., for
   the assignment of their contracts.  For example, I would bet that OSIS
   requires that it approve any assignment of its contract.

    

   Rob and Don, I don't know what work has been done on this list,  but we
   need to get on top of it ASAP.  Please let me know when you have something
   that you are ready to share.  Can we schedule a call at the end of next
   week on this, say Thursday afternoon at 3 Texas time?  Holly and Dan don't
   need to be on this call.

    

   Best,

    

   Steve

    

    

    

    

                              CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE

   In accordance with Treasury Regulations, please note that any tax advice
   given herein (and in any attachments) is not intended or written to be
   used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
   tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
   party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

    

                             

   This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information
   belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is
   intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you
   are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action regarding
   the contents of this e-mailed information is strictly prohibited. If you
   have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by
   return e-mail, then delete the original message.

    

   From: Holly Sparkman [mailto:hsparkman@roriesparkman.com]
   Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 1:39 PM
   To: Feldhaus, Stephen
   Cc: 'Don Kuykendall'; 'Rob Bassetti'; 'Dan Rorie'
   Subject: RE: Follow Up from teleconference last week

    

   If the entity is wholly owned by Stratfor, it will get pulled into GAAP
   and IRS audits which is what we are trying to avoid.  Let's discuss
   further when we speak next.  Using Philmont may be an option.

    

   Agreed on the bigger concern.

    

   Holly Sparkman

   Rorie Sparkman & Associates LLC

   512-600-3212 t

   512-350-4736 m

   www.roriesparkman.com

    

   The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may contain
   privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  If received in
   error, please destroy and notify sender.  Sender does not waive
   confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.

    

    

   From: Feldhaus, Stephen [mailto:sf@feldhauslaw.com]
   Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 12:35 PM
   To: Holly Sparkman
   Cc: 'Don Kuykendall'; 'Rob Bassetti'; 'Dan Rorie'
   Subject: RE: Follow Up from teleconference last week

    

   Holly,

    

   More on the other items later, as I am tied up until after 3:30 or so
   today, and then only free until 4:00, but I wanted to reply about NEWCO. 
   My strong advice would be to try to form a disregarded entity wholly owned
   by Stratfor to make the payments.  We are doing that now with Philmont in
   the Bahamas for overseas payments.  We could even use Philmont for that
   matter.

    

   A bigger concern is to ensure that the recipients are in fact independent
   contractors and not employees, and also that we have a mechanism to ensure
   that we can show that these are not prohibited payments, for example,
   prohibited by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

    

   Best,

    

   Steve

    

    

    

    

                              CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE

   In accordance with Treasury Regulations, please note that any tax advice
   given herein (and in any attachments) is not intended or written to be
   used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
   tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
   party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

    

                             

   This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information
   belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is
   intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you
   are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action regarding
   the contents of this e-mailed information is strictly prohibited. If you
   have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by
   return e-mail, then delete the original message.

    

   From: Holly Sparkman [mailto:hsparkman@roriesparkman.com]
   Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 12:34 PM
   To: Feldhaus, Stephen
   Cc: 'Don Kuykendall'; 'Rob Bassetti'; 'Dan Rorie'
   Subject: RE: Follow Up from teleconference last week

    

   Dear Steve:

    

   I thought I sent this email on Tuesday, but I'm not sure I ever hit the
   send button.

    

   Have you had the opportunity get on Robert Philpott's schedule for next
   week for a conference call with Dan Rorie to follow up on tax
   structure/issues (item 5 below)?  I think we discussed June 15, 16 or
   17th.  Dan and I are scheduled to meet Monday to prepare an agenda list.

    

   Also, please see attached write up per item 9 below for your review.  I
   believe Don and Rob have spoken to Meredith who is supportive of the
   concept. Realistically, the Newco could be owned by anyone (Don or George)
   who is a minority shareholder of the Inc or LLC to avoid common ownership
   for purposes of GAAP audit.  Dan mentioned, too that there was a Nevada
   corporation that was set up years ago for this purpose (Universal
   Analytics), however, by search on the Nevada Secretary of State site, that
   corporation has been dissolved.  Once the approved, we are happy to do the
   legwork internally since I know you have a lot on your plate right now.

    

   Please let us know if you have any questions or need assistance with
   meeting any of the proposed due dates below.

    

   Sincerely,

   Holly

    

   Holly Sparkman

   512-350-4736

    

   From: Holly Sparkman [mailto:hsparkman@roriesparkman.com]
   Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 2:33 PM
   To: 'Stephen Feldhaus'
   Cc: 'Don Kuykendall'; 'Rob Bassetti'; 'Dan Rorie'
   Subject: Follow Up from teleconference last week

    

   Dear Steve:

    

   Below is a list of notes from last Thursday's conference call regarding
   more immediate pending items.    I took the liberty of suggesting internal
   \"due date\" for tasks below.  Please let me know if you have any questions,
   require further information, or wish to suggest a different due date.

    

   1)    Steve (June 10) to request copy of Certificate of Formation and IRS
   SS-4/EIN for new Delaware LLC, provide copy to Holly/Rob

   2)      Steve (June 10)  to provide flow chart view of new proposed entity
   structure

   3)      Steve (June 10) to provide closing task list for Aug 1, 12am close

   4)      Steve (June 10) to review missing data per shareholder spreadsheet
   provided and discussed last week (and attached for your convenience), upon
   Steve's review and updates, Rob to follow up on missing data

   a.       Missing Restricted Stock Agreements: 

                                                                  i.     
   Grant Perry

                                                                ii.      Jay
   Young

   b.      Series A documentation discrepancies

                                                                  i.     
   Fred (ck/cert)

                                                                ii.      Bart
   Mongoven (agreement/cert)

                                                               iii.     
   Van/Feldhaus (dates)

   c.       83(b) elections missing copies for 5 people

   d.      Series B documentation: various

   e.      Preferred Stock, do not have copies of certificates being issued

   5)      Steve (June 3) to schedule conference call with Robert Philpott
   for week of June 13th with Dan Rorie, Don, Rob and Holly to discuss tax
   considerations for all legal entities (related to recording transaction as
   well as go forward profit allocations, etc)  Dan/Holly to prepare list of
   topics for discussion by June 10th.

   6)      Holly (June 10)  to consult with Maxwell Locke & Ritter regarding
   GAAP issues for transaction recording and go-forward audit considerations

   7)      Holly/Rob (June 10) to provide outline of state jurisdiction
   issues including employees by state with broad job description and
   coordinate with Feldhaus/Philpott for new LLC registration/recommendations
   for appropriate states

   8)      Rob (June 10)  to clean up old State of Texas registrations

   9)      Holly (June 3) to provide write up for proposed new legal entity
   to handle anonymous source payment

   10)   Holly to update shareholder list to include following (done--see
   attached)

   a.       Correction for rounding error

   b.      Removal of restricted stock distinction

   c.       Change 75% voting list to 2/3 vote list

   11)   Rob/Holly (June 17) to review files for copies of old p/s tax
   returns and work with Don to restructure current tax basis for major
   shareholders (Don, George, Feldhaus, etc), note, Holly reviewed
   preliminarily with Dan Rorie, we have expectation that there was zero tax
   basis at time of 2003 LLC treated as partnership for Federal tax was
   merged/converted to C Corp.  To extent more money was put into C Corp in
   the form of equity, may be tax basis.

         12)  Rob (June 17) to handle opening new operating account with TCB
   for new legal entity once item (1) above is received, need account open
   and ready to receive funds prior to closing.

         13)  Holly/Rob (June 30) to ready new Quickbooks online account for
   new LLC for operations prior to closing.

          14)  Rob/Holly/Fernando (June 17) to provide master contracts
   schedule identifying any contract assignment issues for discussion the
   week of June 13.

    

   Thanks,

   Holly

    

   Holly Sparkman

   Rorie Sparkman & Associates LLC

   1250 S. Capital of Texas Hwy

   Bldg 1, Suite 300

   Austin, TX  78746

   512-600-3212 t

   512-327-3411 f

   512-350-4736 m

   www.roriesparkman.com

    

   The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may contain
   privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  If received in
   error, please destroy and notify sender.  Sender does not waive
   confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.

    

    

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   No virus found in this message.
   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
   Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1511/3673 - Release Date: 06/01/11
","2011-06-17 21:16:18",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1409763_re-follow-up-from-teleconference-last-week-.html","kuykendall@stratfor.com","","sf@feldhauslaw.com,rob.bassetti@stratfor.com,hsparkman@roriesparkman.com,drorie@roriesparkman.com",""
1413539,"Re: Invoice for Stratcap
","","2011-09-18 21:12:34",1,"2012-03-01 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1413539_re-invoice-for-stratcap-.html","holly.sparkman@stratfor.com","","kuykendall@stratfor.com,rob.bassetti@stratfor.com","attach/120/120562_2011 09 15 Fin.pdf"
1413548,"ME1 pay increase
","Just received word from Meredith to increase pay for ME1 to $6000 per 
month, half coded to current department, half coded to 570 (Stratcap).

-- 
Rob Bassetti
STRATFOR
Finance Department
512-744-4081
bassetti@stratfor.com
","2011-10-17 18:22:42",1,"2012-03-01 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1413548_me1-pay-increase-.html","bassetti@stratfor.com","","payroll@stratfor.com",""
1413968,"Departmental Reports
","","2011-10-20 22:08:39",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1413968_departmental-reports-.html","bassetti@stratfor.com","","kuykendall@stratfor.com,holly.sparkman@stratfor.com,fernando.jaimes@stratfor.com","attach/120/120577_511-Finance_HR, September 2011.pdf
attach/120/120579_514-IT, 9_2011.pdf
attach/120/120580_534-Customer Service, 9_2011.pdf
attach/120/120581_563-ADP, 9_2011.pdf
attach/120/120582_562-Strategic Intelligence, 9_2011.pdf
attach/120/120583_567-Multimedia, 9_2011.pdf
attach/120/120584_561-Op Center, 9_2011.pdf
attach/120/120585_564-Tactical Intelligence, 9_2011.pdf
attach/120/120586_566-Graphics, 9_2011.pdf
attach/120/120587_512-Austin Facilities, 9_2011.pdf
attach/120/120589_513-DC Facilities, 9_2011.pdf
attach/120/120590_533-Individual Sales, 9_2011.pdf
attach/120/120591_568-OSINT, 9_2011.pdf
attach/120/120592_531-Executive, 9_2011.pdf
attach/120/120593_535-Institutional Sales, 9_2011.pdf
attach/120/120595_841-International, 9_2011.pdf
attach/120/120596_565-Editors, 9_2011.pdf
attach/120/120636_000-All Departments Summary Sheet1.pdf"
1413997,"COMPLETED TASK: Swedish EU Agenda
","   Attached is the sweep document, the working programme from the office of
   the pm, and a guide to the swedish presidency from a business consultancy.

 Robert Reinfrank
 STRATFOR Intern
 Austin, Texas
 P: + 1-310-614-1156
 robert.reinfrank@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com

 Date:  June 23, 2009
 Analyst:  Marko Papic
 RESEARCHER: Robert (he is expecting it)
 PRIORITY: 1

 \"I need a really thorough sweep of articles about the upcoming Swedish EU Presidency. Please also check the Presidency website and try to see if there is any sense of what the agenda may be... Although that may not be as easy as it sounds.\"




   Marko Papic wrote:

     RESEARCHER: Robert (he is expecting it)
     PRIORITY: 1

     I need a really thorough sweep of articles about the upcoming Swedish EU
     Presidency. Please also check the Presidency website and try to see if
     there is any sense of what the agenda may be... Although that may not be
     as easy as it sounds.
","2009-06-23 17:21:28",1,"2012-02-29 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1413997_completed-task-swedish-eu-agenda-.html","robert.reinfrank@stratfor.com","","marko.papic@stratfor.com,interns@stratfor.com,research@stratfor.com","attach/120/120643_The Swedish EU Presidency.doc
attach/120/120644_Swedish Presidency Business Guide.pdf
attach/120/120645_Working Programme.pdf"
1414158,"Re: ME1 pay increase
","   Does Don get these emails?  He should.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Rob Bassetti\" <bassetti@stratfor.com>
   To: \"payroll\" <payroll@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 11:22:42 AM
   Subject: ME1 pay increase

   Just received word from Meredith to increase pay for ME1 to $6000 per
   month, half coded to current department, half coded to 570 (Stratcap).

   --
   Rob Bassetti
   STRATFOR
   Finance Department
   512-744-4081
   bassetti@stratfor.com
","2011-10-17 21:22:41",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1414158_re-me1-pay-increase-.html","holly.sparkman@stratfor.com","","bassetti@stratfor.com",""
1429763,"Client working list
","","2011-04-23 06:54:15",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1429763_client-working-list-.html","","","sf@feldhauslaw.com,Don.kuykendall@stratfor.com","attach/5/5728_image001.png
attach/37/37035_client list.xls"
1429826,"categories for clients
","","2010-11-27 17:52:32",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1429826_categories-for-clients-.html","","","kuykendall@stratfor.com,darryl.oconnor@stratfor.com,holly.sparkman@stratfor.com","attach/5/5728_image001.png
attach/122/122407_Client list.xls"
1431520,"Fwd: Jen Richmond's Source
","42","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-29 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1431520_fwd-jen-richmond-s-source-.html","rob.bassetti@stratfor.com","","meredith.friedman@stratfor.com,ar@stratfor.com","attach/122/122530_Bill or Credit - STRATFOR - QuickBooks Online Plus.pdf"
1457112,"Re: Dealing with the Turks
","   ok, let us know how you want to use the lever of our charging them with
   falsifying what we said. is that something you prefer to handle directly?
   On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:45 AM, George Friedman wrote:

     Ok. There are others we can approach for this. But I want to smooth the
     relation with zaman and use the lever of our charging them with
     falsifying what we said. I want to explore a counter at the heart of our
     critics.

     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Reva Bhalla <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
     Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:43:19 -0500 (CDT)
     To: <friedman@att.blackberry.net>
     Cc: Emre Dogru<emre.dogru@stratfor.com>; Kamran
     Bokhari<bokhari@stratfor.com>; Reva Bhalla<bhalla@stratfor.com>; George
     Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>; Meredith
     Friedman<mfriedman@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Re: Dealing with the Turks
     Bulent Kenes is in charge of Today's Zaman - English language. Ali Aslan
     is in charge of Zaman - Turkish language.  Both are Zaman.
     On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:42 AM, George Friedman wrote:

       Hold on. Who is ali and who is bulent. So far I only authorized
       contact with zaman.

       Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       From: Reva Bhalla <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
       Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:40:15 -0500
       To: <friedman@att.blackberry.net>
       Cc: Emre Dogru<emre.dogru@stratfor.com>; Kamran
       Bokhari<bokhari@stratfor.com>; Reva Bhalla<bhalla@stratfor.com>;
       George Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>; Meredith
       Friedman<mfriedman@stratfor.com>
       Subject: Re: Dealing with the Turks
       that's good. will add that to the email response.
       if Bulent is saying no, Ali will probably say no as well. im still
       waiting for his response.
       Emre, Ali wanted to know which of his contacts we met with in Turkey,
       so it doesn't surprise me that he and Bulent are coordinating and
       exchanging emails on this.  Ali was also trying to get us to issue a
       retraction.
       On Sep 1, 2010, at 10:37 AM, George Friedman wrote:

         Further thoughts.

         Turkey has no better or influential friend than stratfor in the
         united states. We are not seeking a breach with the movement but
         will defend ourselves. We can do it in a dialog form if he wishes.

         I would say something like that.

         Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: \"George Friedman\" <friedman@att.blackberry.net>
         Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:34:55 +0000
         To: Emre Dogru<emre.dogru@stratfor.com>
         ReplyTo: friedman@att.blackberry.net
         Cc: Reva Bhalla<reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>; Kamran
         Bokhari<bokhari@stratfor.com>; Reva Bhalla<bhalla@stratfor.com>;
         George Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>; Meredith
         Friedman<mfriedman@stratfor.com>
         Subject: Re: Dealing with the Turks
         Remember that we have credibility in turkey. Would it help if I
         spoke to him?

         Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: Emre Dogru <emre.dogru@stratfor.com>
         Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 10:31:54 -0500 (CDT)
         To: <friedman@att.blackberry.net>
         Cc: Reva Bhalla<reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>; Kamran
         Bokhari<bokhari@stratfor.com>; Reva Bhalla<bhalla@stratfor.com>;
         George Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>; Meredith
         Friedman<mfriedman@stratfor.com>
         Subject: Re: Dealing with the Turks
         I was on the phone with Bulent Kenes, editor-in-chief of Today's
         Zaman, for quite a while. I explained him the situation and your
         purpose. Briefly, he said they will not publish a letter or article
         that you would write. He suggests us to write another article and
         correct mistakes that we did, send it to all our clients and \"all
         concerned\". They will greatly cite that in their newspaper if we do
         this. He says he frankly thinks that they deserve an apology due to
         the \"negative taste\" of the report. None of the things that they
         told us in our meeting was included in the report.

         Between the lines, I told him that we never defined Gulen movement
         as fundamental violent organization. He said it was Abdulhamit's
         piece and not his.

         He was pretty nice and talkative, just tried to convince me. My
         personal opinion is that trying to reach out to them shows our
         willingness to maintain dialogue and we're fine like this. Btw Reva,
         Ali Aslan told (or forwarded) the things that you wrote him to
         Bulent and Abdulhamit. Especially the parts that you got information
         from them during our meeting.

         George Friedman wrote:

           Yes. I want to at least have it on record that we tried to have
           dialogue. Use my name and no one elses. I want to write a piece.
           Make it clear I am not angry. Just misunderstood.

           Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: Emre Dogru <emre.dogru@stratfor.com>
           Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:48:27 +0300
           To: <friedman@att.blackberry.net>
           Cc: Reva Bhalla<reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>; Kamran
           Bokhari<bokhari@stratfor.com>; Reva Bhalla<bhalla@stratfor.com>;
           George Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>; Meredith
           Friedman<mfriedman@stratfor.com>
           Subject: Re: Dealing with the Turks
           Sabah would not want to take side by us against Zaman. They would
           prefer not to get involved in this. They are close to the
           government and government is close to Gulen movement. They don't
           want media quarrel.

           Btw, not sure if I included in the quick translation but
           Abdulhamit says we said Sabah was an Islamist newspaper.

           I can contact zaman or even Abdulhamit if you'd like.

           George Friedman wrote:

             We don't want a neutral forum. We would like the most rabid
             gulenist forum. If they will give it to us. Emre, how do you
             feel about contacting zaman and saying I would like to explain
             stratfor's position there.

             Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

             From: Reva Bhalla <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
             Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:43:18 -0500
             To: Emre Dogru<emre.dogru@stratfor.com>
             Cc: <friedman@att.blackberry.net>; Kamran
             Bokhari<bokhari@stratfor.com>; Reva Bhalla<bhalla@stratfor.com>;
             George Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>; Meredith
             Friedman<mfriedman@stratfor.com>
             Subject: Re: Dealing with the Turks
             wouldn't Sabah be a more neutral forum?
             On Sep 1, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Emre Dogru wrote:

               I don't know if they would publish one in the Turkish Zaman.
               Today's Zaman is more liberal than the Turkish one, it could
               publish your letter. But I think it would be good idea to ask
               them before you write it.

               You are right, Hurriyet is not a good idea. We can easily
               become a tool in their fight.

               George Friedman wrote:

                 Emre, would they publish one? If they did I would want a
                 week for all the nuts to come out. I don't want it in
                 hurriyet.
                 Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                 From: Kamran Bokhari <bokhari@stratfor.com>
                 Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 09:35:28 -0500 (CDT)
                 To: Reva Bhalla<bhalla@stratfor.com>
                 Cc: Emre
                 Dogru<emre.dogru@stratfor.com>; <friedman@att.blackberry.net>;
                 George Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>; Meredith
                 Friedman<mfriedman@stratfor.com>
                 Subject: Re: Dealing with the Turks
                 I think George should write an op-ed and publish it in
                 Zaman. 

                 On 9/1/2010 10:32 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

                   We never once described Gulen as 'violent' or 'radical' or
                   anything close to that.
                   Would we be able to do a rebuttal in Sabah?  or would that
                   be a bad idea?

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                   From: \"Emre Dogru\" <emre.dogru@stratfor.com>
                   To: \"Kamran Bokhari\" <bokhari@stratfor.com>
                   Cc: \"Reva
                   Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>, friedman@att.blackberry.net,
                   \"George Friedman\"<gfriedman@stratfor.com>, \"Meredith
                   Friedman\" <mfriedman@stratfor.com>
                   Sent: Wednesday, September 1, 2010 9:29:48 AM
                   Subject: Re: Dealing with the Turks

                   Here is what Abdulhamit Bilici says (btw, he was present
                   in the break-room before George gave lecture in Istanbul
                   conference hall, the short, bald guy)

                   Title: Strategic Scratch/defamation

                   An American researcher, Reva Bhalla, came to visit us few
                   weeks ago. Asked many questions about Gulenist schools,
                   referendum etc. We answered her questions and suggested
                   her to meet with opponents as well to see broader picture.
                   When I received the report, I noticed even though we've
                   told that the real struggle is between those who are eager
                   to maintain the statusquo and those who want change, they
                   built the entire report on Islamist - Secularist debate.
                   (He gives here names of Turkish intellectuals from
                   different nationalities and religions and says that if it
                   would be true, these people would be Islamist as well)

                   There are many faults when it comes to its objectivity. It
                   includes \"violent radical Islamist\" to define Gulen
                   movement as extreme opponents use. Report says Gulen
                   supports dialogue between religions abroad, and promotes
                   Islam at home. Isn't it interesting that it doesn't say
                   anything that could be in favor of Gulen in the West. No
                   mention about Gulen's meetings with Pope.

                   The report could mention \"Abant Platform\" (a conference
                   that Gulen movement organizes and gathers many people from
                   a wide specturm) to show that we make different people
                   come together. The report didn't say that Gulen said he
                   hates Bin Laden, (published on Zaman) because it could
                   show Gulen positive?

                   There are many errors; Turkish schools were shut down in
                   n. Iraq, Gulen praised new Turkish intel chief Fidan, a
                   Bank changed its name. Many many lies and allegations
                   without evidence.

                   Stratfor, which drew attention by showing Turkey as a
                   leader country in the future and founded by G Friedman,
                   needs to think what to do with all these lies..

                   Kamran Bokhari wrote:

                     Btw, Hurriyet putting your name on the shorter piece
                     could just be an error or something they just did as per
                     their SOP. A few years ago, the Pakistani daily, The
                     News, published one of our regular analyses with my
                     byline and even slapped a picture of me on it. It's
                     never happened again because whenever I share any of our
                     material with anyone I put the following disclaimer up
                     on top and in bold:

                     Please do not republish without permission. STRATFOR
                     reports in general are the product of a collaborative
                     effort on the part of our analytical group and not the
                     work of a single analyst. Therefore, should you need to
                     quote from this or any of our other analyses that do not
                     carry a byline, please refer to it as *STRATFOR says...*
                     Thank you.
                     On 9/1/2010 9:42 AM, Emre Dogru wrote:

                       Bulent Kenes, editor in chief of Today's Zaman also
                       criticized the piece before it was published by
                       Hurriyet. I asked him what facts does he disagree with
                       and how he would portray the current situation. He did
                       not respond, because he simply did not have anything
                       to say against the facts.

                       Reva Bhalla wrote:

                         Falsifying what facts?  Not a single one of these
                         guys has produced any evidence to the contrary. Now
                         they're all hell bent on making us look like an
                         Israeli agent just because we are the only ones who
                         have discussed the Gulen in detail.
                         I'm going to send out a draft email that I've been
                         composing to respond to emails like this so we can
                         all be on the same page and deliver the same, firm
                         response. These guys really think they can dictate
                         everything we write.
                         On Sep 1, 2010, at 8:30 AM, Kamran Bokhari wrote:

                           One of my Turkish contacts in the U.S., a Gulenist
                           sent me the following note this morning:

                           Salam; 

                           It seems that you're not preparing reports on
                           Turkey at Stratfor's anymore. It's unbelievable
                           that the report prepared by Reva Bhalla is
                           published by Stratfor despite you. There is
                           nothing to be gained from falsifying the facts. If
                           Stratfor is an institution like WINEP, this is
                           understandable. You have responsibility toward
                           your clients to portray a picture of a country
                           close to the facts. It seems that Reva Bhalla's
                           report is not prepared by this sense of
                           responsibility. 

                           What is strange is that he doesn't know Reva.
                           Also, he has seen many of our previous reports
                           Turkey but never once complained. I guess he
                           wasn't expecting one on the Gulen movement. 
                           On 9/1/2010 9:22 AM, George Friedman wrote:

                             I'm sorry hurriyet published your name but
                             stratfor publishes what it thinks is correct.
                             There is no flexibility on our part on this.
                             Once we start to bend very far on this, we are
                             finished. I will be having more substantial
                             pressure I'm sure. So be it.
                             Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                             From: Emre Dogru <emre.dogru@stratfor.com>
                             Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 04:19:44 -0500 (CDT)
                             To: Reva Bhalla<reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
                             Cc: George Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>;
                             Kamran Bokhari<bokhari@stratfor.com>; Meredith
                             Friedman<mfriedman@stratfor.com>
                             Subject: Re: Dealing with the Turks
                             I will add my thoughts here. But before that, I
                             need to inform you that our Hurriyet Daily News
                             partners re-published our article on AKP -
                             Gulenist split
                             (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=turkey-an-emerging-akp-gulenist-split-2010-08-31),
                             by referring my name and role at Stratfor. This
                             could further complicate the things that Reva
                             laid out below. For your information, I always
                             forward our articles on Turkey to our partners
                             and some people that I know. HDN did not inform
                             me that they would re-publish our article and
                             mention my name. Please let me know what we are
                             supposed to do now.

                             Apart from this, Gulenists got over-concerned
                             following our special report given their already
                             tarnishing image in the US. We've been closely
                             following AKP's efforts to reverse this
                             situation. However, we are an American company
                             and we wrote in detail on how Gulen community
                             works and their relationship to the AKP. They
                             don't have anything to say against the facts
                             that we included, because we wrote the truth.
                             But as Reva says, the mere fact that we wrote
                             about them and how they work disturbed them
                             intensely.

                             They won't be happy unless we take their side.
                             So, I don't think that we need to work to make
                             them happy. They are extremely skeptical to us
                             because we are American, and I'm sure they
                             wonder if there is an American plan in the works
                             against Gulen and AKP and if we are a part of
                             it. I think what we need to do is to convince
                             them that there is no such a thing and we write
                             what we know, without taking side by anyone.
                             This could help us to maintain our
                             relationships. Guidance would be much
                             appreciated, especially given HDN re-published
                             our article.

                             Thanks,
                             Emre

                             Reva Bhalla wrote:

                               Just want to keep everyone informed on the
                               feedback we're getting from the Gulenists on
                               the power struggle report since they are
                               becoming a bit of an issue and since G is
                               going to be in Turkey soon. 

                               So far, feedback from the secularists,
                               military and moderate AKP types has been good.
                               The more extreme Gulenists (for example, the
                               editor of Today's Zaman and the US head of
                               Tuskon business group) are not happy with us.
                               It's quite clear that they were lovey dovey
                               with Emre and I in Turkey  because they
                               intended for us to write out their propaganda
                               and describe Gulen solely as a 'peace-loving,
                               democratic and pro-reform human rights
                               organization.'  The Gulenists are also on the
                               defensive right now with the release of a new
                               book in Turkey by a former police chief that
                               details their infiltration into police
                               intelligence.  They are being extremely
                               defensive about any Islamist connotation
                               attached to them, and are flat out denying
                               their infiltration of any of the security
                               agencies. 

                               We had credible sourcing for this report,
                               including a former Gulenist who walked me
                               through the recruitment process. Since this
                               stuff isn't discussed in English language,
                               they are naturally uncomfortable with it being
                               published.  None of the Gulenists who are
                               criticizing the report have presented
                               counter-evidence to anything we've said yet
                               and are sticking mainly to polemic arguments.
                               Notably, the Today's Zaman counterargument
                               that was published was quite tame. 

                               Now, these guys are difficult to deal with,
                               but it's important for them to realize they
                               need us just as it is important for us to keep
                               open a channel with Gulen to keep information
                               coming.  I've been trying to work out some
                               sort of damage control plan to make clear to
                               them that Stratfor is not interested in taking
                               sides in this power struggle, is an
                               influential player in the US-Turkey
                               relationship and how it behooves both sides to
                               continue working with each other.  George, do
                               you have any guidance on how to handle this so
                               we can maintain these relationships?  The
                               Gulenists can get really nasty if you get on
                               their bad side, and i want to avoid that. 

                               Thanks, 
                               R 

 --
 Emre Dogru

 STRATFOR
 Cell:  +90.532.465.7514
 Fixed: +1.512.279.9468
 emre.dogru@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Emre Dogru

 STRATFOR
 Cell:  +90.532.465.7514
 Fixed: +1.512.279.9468
 emre.dogru@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Emre Dogru

 STRATFOR
 Cell:  +90.532.465.7514
 Fixed: +1.512.279.9468
 emre.dogru@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Emre Dogru

 STRATFOR
 Cell:  +90.532.465.7514
 Fixed: +1.512.279.9468
 emre.dogru@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Emre Dogru

 STRATFOR
 Cell:  +90.532.465.7514
 Fixed: +1.512.279.9468
 emre.dogru@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Emre Dogru

 STRATFOR
 Cell:  +90.532.465.7514
 Fixed: +1.512.279.9468
 emre.dogru@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2010-09-01 17:47:15",1,"2012-03-03 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1457112_re-dealing-with-the-turks-.html","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com","","mfriedman@stratfor.com,gfriedman@stratfor.com,bhalla@stratfor.com,bokhari@stratfor.com,friedman@att.blackberry.net,emre.dogru@stratfor.com",""
1458921,"RE: Follow Up from teleconference last week
","   Holly,

    

   I guess I don't understand the IRS and GAAP concerns.  It seems to me that
   we are going to have to account for these expenses in any event, so I
   don't how GAAP is relevant, and I would think that this structure makes us
   more, not less, susceptible to an IRS attack.  Let's discuss early next
   week.

    

   Best,

    

   Steve

    

    

    

                              CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE

   In accordance with Treasury Regulations, please note that any tax advice
   given herein (and in any attachments) is not intended or written to be
   used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
   tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
   party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

    

                             

   This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information
   belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is
   intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you
   are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action regarding
   the contents of this e-mailed information is strictly prohibited. If you
   have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by
   return e-mail, then delete the original message.

    

   From: Holly Sparkman [mailto:hsparkman@roriesparkman.com]
   Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 1:39 PM
   To: Feldhaus, Stephen
   Cc: 'Don Kuykendall'; 'Rob Bassetti'; 'Dan Rorie'
   Subject: RE: Follow Up from teleconference last week

    

   If the entity is wholly owned by Stratfor, it will get pulled into GAAP
   and IRS audits which is what we are trying to avoid.  Let's discuss
   further when we speak next.  Using Philmont may be an option.

    

   Agreed on the bigger concern.

    

   Holly Sparkman

   Rorie Sparkman & Associates LLC

   512-600-3212 t

   512-350-4736 m

   www.roriesparkman.com

    

   The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may contain
   privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  If received in
   error, please destroy and notify sender.  Sender does not waive
   confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.

    

    

   From: Feldhaus, Stephen [mailto:sf@feldhauslaw.com]
   Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 12:35 PM
   To: Holly Sparkman
   Cc: 'Don Kuykendall'; 'Rob Bassetti'; 'Dan Rorie'
   Subject: RE: Follow Up from teleconference last week

    

   Holly,

    

   More on the other items later, as I am tied up until after 3:30 or so
   today, and then only free until 4:00, but I wanted to reply about NEWCO. 
   My strong advice would be to try to form a disregarded entity wholly owned
   by Stratfor to make the payments.  We are doing that now with Philmont in
   the Bahamas for overseas payments.  We could even use Philmont for that
   matter.

    

   A bigger concern is to ensure that the recipients are in fact independent
   contractors and not employees, and also that we have a mechanism to ensure
   that we can show that these are not prohibited payments, for example,
   prohibited by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

    

   Best,

    

   Steve

    

    

    

    

                              CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE

   In accordance with Treasury Regulations, please note that any tax advice
   given herein (and in any attachments) is not intended or written to be
   used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
   tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
   party any transaction or matter addressed herein.

    

                             

   This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information
   belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is
   intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you
   are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
   disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action regarding
   the contents of this e-mailed information is strictly prohibited. If you
   have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by
   return e-mail, then delete the original message.

    

   From: Holly Sparkman [mailto:hsparkman@roriesparkman.com]
   Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 12:34 PM
   To: Feldhaus, Stephen
   Cc: 'Don Kuykendall'; 'Rob Bassetti'; 'Dan Rorie'
   Subject: RE: Follow Up from teleconference last week

    

   Dear Steve:

    

   I thought I sent this email on Tuesday, but I'm not sure I ever hit the
   send button.

    

   Have you had the opportunity get on Robert Philpott's schedule for next
   week for a conference call with Dan Rorie to follow up on tax
   structure/issues (item 5 below)?  I think we discussed June 15, 16 or
   17th.  Dan and I are scheduled to meet Monday to prepare an agenda list.

    

   Also, please see attached write up per item 9 below for your review.  I
   believe Don and Rob have spoken to Meredith who is supportive of the
   concept. Realistically, the Newco could be owned by anyone (Don or George)
   who is a minority shareholder of the Inc or LLC to avoid common ownership
   for purposes of GAAP audit.  Dan mentioned, too that there was a Nevada
   corporation that was set up years ago for this purpose (Universal
   Analytics), however, by search on the Nevada Secretary of State site, that
   corporation has been dissolved.  Once the approved, we are happy to do the
   legwork internally since I know you have a lot on your plate right now.

    

   Please let us know if you have any questions or need assistance with
   meeting any of the proposed due dates below.

    

   Sincerely,

   Holly

    

   Holly Sparkman

   512-350-4736

    

   From: Holly Sparkman [mailto:hsparkman@roriesparkman.com]
   Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 2:33 PM
   To: 'Stephen Feldhaus'
   Cc: 'Don Kuykendall'; 'Rob Bassetti'; 'Dan Rorie'
   Subject: Follow Up from teleconference last week

    

   Dear Steve:

    

   Below is a list of notes from last Thursday's conference call regarding
   more immediate pending items.    I took the liberty of suggesting internal
   \"due date\" for tasks below.  Please let me know if you have any questions,
   require further information, or wish to suggest a different due date.

    

   1)    Steve (June 10) to request copy of Certificate of Formation and IRS
   SS-4/EIN for new Delaware LLC, provide copy to Holly/Rob

   2)      Steve (June 10)  to provide flow chart view of new proposed entity
   structure

   3)      Steve (June 10) to provide closing task list for Aug 1, 12am close

   4)      Steve (June 10) to review missing data per shareholder spreadsheet
   provided and discussed last week (and attached for your convenience), upon
   Steve's review and updates, Rob to follow up on missing data

   a.       Missing Restricted Stock Agreements: 

                                                                  i.     
   Grant Perry

                                                                ii.      Jay
   Young

   b.      Series A documentation discrepancies

                                                                  i.     
   Fred (ck/cert)

                                                                ii.      Bart
   Mongoven (agreement/cert)

                                                               iii.     
   Van/Feldhaus (dates)

   c.       83(b) elections missing copies for 5 people

   d.      Series B documentation: various

   e.      Preferred Stock, do not have copies of certificates being issued

   5)      Steve (June 3) to schedule conference call with Robert Philpott
   for week of June 13th with Dan Rorie, Don, Rob and Holly to discuss tax
   considerations for all legal entities (related to recording transaction as
   well as go forward profit allocations, etc)  Dan/Holly to prepare list of
   topics for discussion by June 10th.

   6)      Holly (June 10)  to consult with Maxwell Locke & Ritter regarding
   GAAP issues for transaction recording and go-forward audit considerations

   7)      Holly/Rob (June 10) to provide outline of state jurisdiction
   issues including employees by state with broad job description and
   coordinate with Feldhaus/Philpott for new LLC registration/recommendations
   for appropriate states

   8)      Rob (June 10)  to clean up old State of Texas registrations

   9)      Holly (June 3) to provide write up for proposed new legal entity
   to handle anonymous source payment

   10)   Holly to update shareholder list to include following (done--see
   attached)

   a.       Correction for rounding error

   b.      Removal of restricted stock distinction

   c.       Change 75% voting list to 2/3 vote list

   11)   Rob/Holly (June 17) to review files for copies of old p/s tax
   returns and work with Don to restructure current tax basis for major
   shareholders (Don, George, Feldhaus, etc), note, Holly reviewed
   preliminarily with Dan Rorie, we have expectation that there was zero tax
   basis at time of 2003 LLC treated as partnership for Federal tax was
   merged/converted to C Corp.  To extent more money was put into C Corp in
   the form of equity, may be tax basis.

         12)  Rob (June 17) to handle opening new operating account with TCB
   for new legal entity once item (1) above is received, need account open
   and ready to receive funds prior to closing.

         13)  Holly/Rob (June 30) to ready new Quickbooks online account for
   new LLC for operations prior to closing.

          14)  Rob/Holly/Fernando (June 17) to provide master contracts
   schedule identifying any contract assignment issues for discussion the
   week of June 13.

    

   Thanks,

   Holly

    

   Holly Sparkman

   Rorie Sparkman & Associates LLC

   1250 S. Capital of Texas Hwy

   Bldg 1, Suite 300

   Austin, TX  78746

   512-600-3212 t

   512-327-3411 f

   512-350-4736 m

   www.roriesparkman.com

    

   The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may contain
   privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  If received in
   error, please destroy and notify sender.  Sender does not waive
   confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.

    

    

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   No virus found in this message.
   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
   Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1511/3673 - Release Date: 06/01/11
","2011-06-10 19:41:29",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1458921_re-follow-up-from-teleconference-last-week-.html","sf@feldhauslaw.com","","kuykendall@stratfor.com,rob.bassetti@stratfor.com,hsparkman@roriesparkman.com,drorie@roriesparkman.com",""
1459746,"Fwd: New action item list
","   Hi Rob,

    

   Please keep on top of your deadlines below and let me know how I can
   help.  I'll plan for thorough review if needed when I return from
   vacation.

    

   Thanks,

   Holly

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Holly Sparkman\" <holly.sparkman@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Stephen Feldhaus\" <sf@feldhauslaw.com>, \"Don Kuykendall\"
   <kuykendall@stratfor.com>
   Cc: \"Rob Bassetti\" <rob.bassetti@stratfor.com>, \"Dan Rorie\"
   <drorie@roriesparkman.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 9:31:20 AM
   Subject: Re: New action item list

   correction to the correction (sorry), I misunderstood.  It is recommended
   to escrow a total of $300k for prior tax obligations.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Holly Sparkman\" <holly.sparkman@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Stephen Feldhaus\" <sf@feldhauslaw.com>, \"Don Kuykendall\"
   <kuykendall@stratfor.com>
   Cc: \"Rob Bassetti\" <rob.bassetti@stratfor.com>, \"Dan Rorie\"
   <drorie@roriesparkman.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 9:29:07 AM
   Subject: Re: New action item list

   correction to 1. below, per Dan and Don's discussions last week,
   recommended $150k tax escrow.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Holly Sparkman\" <holly.sparkman@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Stephen Feldhaus\" <sf@feldhauslaw.com>, \"Don Kuykendall\"
   <kuykendall@stratfor.com>
   Cc: \"Rob Bassetti\" <rob.bassetti@stratfor.com>, \"Dan Rorie\"
   <drorie@roriesparkman.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 9:02:22 AM
   Subject: New action item list

   Good morning, Gentlemen:
    
   Below is an attempt at outlining the remaining action items for completion
   prior to deal close on July 31.  Please let me know if there is anything
   I've missed.  Rob and I are devoted to month-end close this week, so
   we've pushed deadlines to next week on other items we are responsible for.
    
   Holly
    
   Holly Sparkman
   512-350-4736
     
   NEW LIST:
    
   1.  Steve:  (July 8) Tax estimate resolution:  Currently estimating approx
   $127k to be escrowed for the payment of taxes.  I will recommend an
   additional 10% contigenency and recommend $140k be escrowed. 
   2.  Steve:  (July 8) 382 analysis feedback from Bobby.
   3. Steve:  (July 15) Pending approval for pursuing SS4/tax ID for Stratfor
   Enterprises LLC in order to open bank account and set up
   payroll/benefits/insurance contracts prior to deal close.  Received
   certificiate of formation for Stratfor Enterprises LLC and SM Stratfor
   Partners LLC. 
   4.  Steve:  (July 15) will need Cert of Formation for Newco #2 (to be
   distributed to Stratfor s/h) and Newco #3 (to hold interest in Stratcap)
   along with SS4/tax id #
   5. Rob:  (July 15) key man life insurance - new beneficiary form for
   George's policy
   6.  Rob:  (July 15) completion of files for closing, including client,
   vendor, and employee contracts needing assignment
   7.  Rob:  (July 15) commercial insurance transition as needed (add
   Stratfor Enterprises LLC, Newco #2 and Newco #3 to policies)
   8.  Letecia/Rob:  (July 15) paychex transition plan, health insurance and
   other benefits (401k, COBRA, other) contract transition as needed (add
   Stratfor Enterprises LLC to policies)
   9.  Steve/Rob (July 15) resolution of outstanding capital stock issues for
   Strategic Forecasting Inc.
   10.  Holly:  (July 15) follow up with Maxwell Locke & Ritter on any GAAP
   issues
   11. Steve/Rob (July 15) address multi-state jurisdiction issues
   for franchise, income and sales taxes and registration as needed for
   Stratfor Enterprises LLC
   12.  Holly: (July 31) prepare new online QB for Newco transition
   13.  Steve/Holly:  (July 15) address issues related to anonymous source
   payments
    
   From: Holly Sparkman <holly.sparkman@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:10:37 -0500 (CDT)
   To: Stephen Feldhaus <sf@feldhauslaw.com>, Don Kuykendall
   <kuykendall@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Don Kuykendall <kuykendall@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Fwd: Follow Up from teleconference last week

   Hi Steve:

    

   I'm hoping we can speak with Philpott tomorrow while we have him on the
   phone about item 7 below. Will Bobby have an update for us per the list
   Rob sent previously regarding employees in states outside Texas and
   related nexus issues?

    

   Also, perhaps once we finish the tax and state jurisdiction overview with
   Bobby and Dan, we can stay on the line and provide updates on the other
   items listed below.  I've provided updates in red that I'm aware of.

    

   Thank you,

   Holly

    

   Holly Sparkman

   512-350-4736

   -------- Original Message --------

   Subject: Follow Up from teleconference last week                           
      Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 14:33:22 -0500                                    
      From: Holly Sparkman <hsparkman@roriesparkman.com>                      
        To: 'Stephen Feldhaus' <sf@feldhauslaw.com>                           
        CC: 'Don Kuykendall' <kuykendall@stratfor.com>, 'Rob Bassetti'        
            <rob.bassetti@stratfor.com>, 'Dan Rorie'                          
            <drorie@roriesparkman.com>                                        

   Dear Steve:

    

   Below is a list of notes from last Thursdaya**s conference call regarding
   more immediate pending items.    I took the liberty of suggesting internal
   a**due datea** for tasks below.  Please let me know if you have any
   questions, require further information, or wish to suggest a different due
   date.

    

   1)    Steve (June 10) to request copy of Certificate of Formation and IRS
   SS-4/EIN for new Delaware LLC, provide copy to Holly/Rob PENDING

   2)      Steve (June 10)  to provide flow chart view of new proposed entity
   structure RECEIVED COPY FROM DON, ON AGENDA FOR TAX DISCUSSION

   3)      Steve (June 10) to provide closing task list for Aug 1, 12am close
   PENDING

   4)      Steve (June 10) to review missing data per shareholder spreadsheet
   provided and discussed last week (and attached for your convenience), upon
   Stevea**s review and updates, Rob to follow up on missing data PENDING

   a.       Missing Restricted Stock Agreements: 

                                                                  i.     
   Grant Perry

                                                                ii.      Jay
   Young

   b.      Series A documentation discrepancies

                                                                  i.     
   Fred (ck/cert)

                                                                ii.      Bart
   Mongoven (agreement/cert)

                                                               iii.     
   Van/Feldhaus (dates)

   c.       83(b) elections missing copies for 5 people

   d.      Series B documentation: various

   e.      Preferred Stock, do not have copies of certificates being issued

   5)      Steve (June 3) to schedule conference call with Robert Philpott
   for week of June 13th with Dan Rorie, Don, Rob and Holly to discuss tax
   considerations for all legal entities (related to recording transaction as
   well as go forward profit allocations, etc)  Dan/Holly to prepare list of
   topics for discussion by June 10th. SCHEDULED, AGENDA TO GO OUT BY 3PM CST
   TODAY

   6)      Holly (June 10)  to consult with Maxwell Locke & Ritter regarding
   GAAP issues for transaction recording and go-forward audit considerations
   DONE, MLR IN PROGRESS OF REVIEW, EXPECT FEEDBACK BY THE END OF NEXT WEEK

   7)      Holly/Rob (June 10) to provide outline of state jurisdiction
   issues including employees by state with broad job description and
   coordinate with Feldhaus/Philpott for new LLC registration/recommendations
   for appropriate states, ROB PROVIDED LIST, PENDING UPDATE FROM
   FELDHAUS/PHILPOTT

   8)      Rob (June 10)  to clean up old State of Texas registrations
   SUBSTANTIALLY DONE, A FEW LOOSE ENDS IN PROGRESS BY ROB

   9)      Holly (June 3) to provide write up for proposed new legal entity
   to handle anonymous source payment, HOLLY PROVIDED MEMO, NEEDS FURTHER
   DISCUSSION WITH STEVE AND ACTION

   10)   Holly to update shareholder list to include following (done--see
   attached)

   a.       Correction for rounding error

   b.      Removal of restricted stock distinction

   c.       Change 75% voting list to 2/3 vote list

   11)   Rob/Holly (June 17) to review files for copies of old p/s tax
   returns and work with Don to restructure current tax basis for major
   shareholders (Don, George, Feldhaus, etc), note, Holly reviewed
   preliminarily with Dan Rorie, we have expectation that there was zero tax
   basis at time of 2003 LLC treated as partnership for Federal tax was
   merged/converted to C Corp.  To extent more money was put into C Corp in
   the form of equity, may be tax basis. IN PROGRESS

         12)  Rob (June 17) to handle opening new operating account with TCB
   for new legal entity once item (1) above is received, need account open
   and ready to receive funds prior to closing. PENDING RECEIPT OF ITEM 1
   ABOVE

         13)  Holly/Rob (June 30) to ready new Quickbooks online account for
   new LLC for operations prior to closing. PENDING

          14)  Rob/Holly/Fernando (June 17) to provide master contracts
   schedule identifying any contract assignment issues for discussion the
   week of June 13. PENDING

    

   Thanks,

   Holly

    

   Holly Sparkman

   Rorie Sparkman & Associates LLC

   1250 S. Capital of Texas Hwy

   Bldg 1, Suite 300

   Austin, TX  78746

   512-600-3212 t

   512-327-3411 f

   512-350-4736 m

   www.roriesparkman.com

    

   The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may contain
   privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.  If received in
   error, please destroy and notify sender.  Sender does not waive
   confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.

    

    

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   No virus found in this message.
   Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
   Version: 10.0.1375 / Virus Database: 1511/3673 - Release Date: 06/01/11
","2011-07-11 22:29:43",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1459746_fwd-new-action-item-list-.html","holly.sparkman@stratfor.com","","rob.bassetti@stratfor.com",""
1477975,"[CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing possible
   cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat Anonymous can pose
   to cartels. The video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing personal
   information on cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I
   could not find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual
   being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and
   Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual posting flyers
   in Veracruz as part of the Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is
   speculation.

   Link: themeData
   Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
   denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed out at
   drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
   criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked individual
   addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the most recent video
   release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels in
   Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers, police,
   politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker
   group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
   consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
   mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their
   demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The potential of
   conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents a unique
   threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out at online bloggers,
   but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches
   from hackers before. 

   What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
        o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat to
   Mexican cartels.
        o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online media
        o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out at
   cartels

   While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a threat
        o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess identifiable
   information on cartel members
        o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
   cartels
        o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
   identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in the
   realm of possibilities for
               Anonymous
               o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit
   online activity (child pornography rings)

   Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the ultra-violent world
   of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result, their understanding of cartel
   activities may be limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting
   in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
   retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online assault of
   cartels.
        o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists will cost
   lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these individuals are forced
   to collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are often victims of
   extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the identity of these
   individuals will not have a significant impact on cartel                  
   operations. Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero
   & Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any consequences
   from this.
        o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels are
   willing to go protect their operations.
           o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
           o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science community
   before, coercing computer science majors into working for them.
           o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of discovering
   hackers within Mexico.

    

   On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but there are
     several issues to address and fix here.

     These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the discussion:

          o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but we
     can't gloss over that fact
          o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference between
     stealing bank records from government computers and overloading
     www.loszetas.com main page.
          o     There's no thought out process of what sort of information
     could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is kept online and
     accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
     identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops, politicians and
     businessmen who need to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
     Think about why the bloggers and media were killed in previous
     instances. Was it because they revealed operational details, because
     they acted as informants, because they exposed links with officials or
     because they somehow sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what
     kind of information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
          o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
     realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure of
     damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for the
     technical ability by a very small number of its members to infiltrate
     certain networks and databases and steal information. Now what kind of
     information would a cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
     internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could information be found?
     Government databases? Once we know what kind of information is
     accessible, we can also know more about the consequences of
     dissemination.
          o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace back
     attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings done by people
     who may not understand the difference between an anon hacker and a
     blogger.

     On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

       wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

       -------- Original Message --------

        Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
           Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
           From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
       Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
             To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

       you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a lot
       more work

       You need to lay out:

       a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section is
       unclear
       b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and therefore
       their vulnerabilities and capabilities
       c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
       d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone who
       breaches their systems or exposes their connections

       I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable insight
       that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant levels of
       sophistication in their online presence, to include the use of cyber
       currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no reason to assume
       that Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a protected
       fashion.

       Karen Hooper
       Latin America Analyst
       o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
       c: 512.750.7234
       STRATFOR
       www.stratfor.com
       On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

       On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       Link: themeData

       Trigger

       Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers. Anonymous,
       a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed out at drug
       cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
       criminal cartels, including a video released depicting...? a person
       talking? a voice? words on a screen? exactly when?.  With the most
       recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
       criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of Mexican?
       American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists who
       collude with criminal cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas
       release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. The
       potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
       presents an unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly
       different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
       Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
       believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do not
       believe for a second that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

        

       In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
       day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of
       releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up front.
       Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back. Provide
       enough details so we understand who this guy is and why/how he was
       abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing revealing
       information on cartel members and operations are true, cartels will
       likely respond with violence against individuals revealed as opposing
       cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous members?. It also is likely
       that public disclosure of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will
       force the GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i
       don't understand what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten
       Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
       against Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will continue
       their threats against any individual using online media WC.... you
       mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers here. against
       the cartels.

        

       The Battle Space

       Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate realities
       from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere of the computer
       networks. Anonymous does not experience geographical boundaries. All
       personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in cyber space.  (That is
       not entirely true. They are physical people tho live in the real
       world. They have names and addresses - although most of them are
       likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power base consists of their
       technical capabilities in hacking. Any information connected to the
       Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's
       of individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population could
       be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous has done are
       DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big company with a
       website that brings in revenue, but it does not really matter if you
       don't run operations on the web. Los Z don't make much money via
       e-commerce.  They are also far less dependent on the web than the
       jihadists.)

       Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power base
       consists of the perceived anonymity that its members believe
       themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating through the
       internet. This gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything and
       everything to practice general dickery. As the popular meme goes,
       anonymity + audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web of
       people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious
       IT capability. 

       The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been from
       targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

       The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
       Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to maximize
       profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar commerce. Yes.....
       but they use the internet to launder money and issue commands. We know
       that Sinaloa does that from insight. There is no reason to assume that
       Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity.  Their power base is built by
       large amounts of revenue and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like
       Los Zetas, are experienced in facing different types of threats.
       Cartels are always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel
       violence. While battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law
       Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in the
       flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted media outlets.
       Murdering journalists and online bloggers in order to cover details of
       their operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for this
       discussion. You need to focus on the possible vulnerabilities of the
       cartels. Don't just assume they have no cyber presence.

        

       Anonymous' Weapons

       Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
       criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to combat
       cartels lay in information operations, mainly disseminating sensitive
       information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel statements via
       social media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean so far and that
       we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to cartels, they
       cannot fight with guns.  The significance of a targeted information
       operations campaign by technically elite individuals can not be
       overlooked should not be underestimated. Cartels view main stream
       media outlets and social media blogs as such a threat to their
       operations, that they have continued to target journalists and
       bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was placed with a
       dead female body  more relevantly, on the body of a blogger. The
       message threatened any users who denounce cartels on blogging
       websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not really addressing the
       subheading

       As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet risks
       disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest Anonymous is
       capable of possessing information they threaten to release. By
       releasing identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican cartels,
       Anonymous threatens the life of those individuals. Anonymous's ability
       to disseminate sensitive information is limited by what is available
       via the Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
       should always be considered a possibility of an attack. However, as
       with the compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer
       networks, information available to Mexico's intelligence collection
       may not be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This
       isn't clear at all

        

       Cartel's Defense

                   A counter response to the video? by the cartels has yet to
       see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped member by Los
       Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by
       hackers so... how has there not been a counter response? also this
       undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is soley internet
       based, and underlines the vulnerabilities of associated members. How
       did they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well
       give you some indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
       Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the
       cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed for
       them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies dedicated to
       fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good intel
       indicating that) they are working on disrupting the cartels.. Hackers
       threatening cartels, can operate in any region of the world. Personal
       information including locations is only available if a hacker chooses
       to divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
       figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous. Cartels are only
       capable of dealing with their online enemy, if they can physically
       reach out to them. Or start employing hackers of their own under their
       payroll? Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                   Cartels have been known to coerce the services of Mexican
       citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the help of computer
       science majors through personal threats has been reported in the past
       where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels operate in the
       world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they will likely need
       the assistance of technical experts to help combat any threat by
       computer hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has
       been demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying
       any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies
       such as the FBi, with far more technical experience and resources than
       cartels, struggle to find hackers through investigations. A) How do
       you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they kidnapped???)
       B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are equally difficult to
       track down

                   In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
       likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with, brute
       force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT operations within
       Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals
       with alleged connections to hacker communities will likely be targeted
       and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and public display
       of violence will likely continue to be used to scare online media into
       submission i'm not really seeing the online media-international
       hacking group connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
       inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely encountered
       before in their life. Whether the fear of cartel violence softens the
       confidence of Anonymous will remain to be seen until cartels are able
       to seek out and capture members of the hacker group.. Or the Narcos
       could call the collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off any
       inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 16:32:57",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1477975_-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1478111,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of these
   in the US?
    What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
   I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
   whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
   because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
   revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding
   of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is expendable to
   cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of coercion.

   Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
   cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of el
   chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication as a
   tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable intelligence,
   the government will use it against the cartels. That's a physical threat,
   if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify that Anonymous can
   not directly effect physical security. Any impact to the cartel in
   revealing information will be from actions of rival cartels or the GoM.
   They may release information on a given politician being linked to the
   cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the politician will feel an impact
   (Just because Anonymous says there is a link, doesn't make it true). It
   would be up to others to take action.

   Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online activity
   (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to conduct significant
   logistics and business online. We don't know how much, but we do know they
   will have some points of operational vulnerability I have heard of cartels
   doing business online, but don't have specific examples which could be
   used in assessing their vulnerability online.

   by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired, arrested
   or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I should say,
   there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out politicians as
   colluding.
   On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

     Karen Hooper
     Latin America Analyst
     o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
     c: 512.750.7234
     STRATFOR
     www.stratfor.com
     On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
     Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing possible
     cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat Anonymous can pose
     to cartels. The video released by Anonymous, threatens revealing
     personal information on cartels as well as states a member had been
     kidnapped. I could not find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of
     the individual being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites
     (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an
     individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the Operation
     Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

     Link: themeData
     Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for distributed
     denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government websites, lashed out at
     drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing Mexico's
     criminal cartels, including a video depicting a masked individual
     addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With the most recent
     video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels
     in Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers, police,
     politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels do they
     specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of these in the
     US?
      What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
     group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
     face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
     mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their
     demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The potential of
     conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents a
     unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels lashing out at online
     bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing with any
     headaches from hackers before. 

     What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
          o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat to
     Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the
     head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using
     publication as a tool to force government action. If you reveal
     actionable intelligence, the government will use it against the cartels.
     That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
          o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online media
          o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out at
     cartels

     While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a threat
          o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess identifiable
     information on cartel members
          o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
     cartels
          o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
     identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in the
     realm of possibilities for
                 Anonymous
                 o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
     illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are
     known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't
     know how much, but we do know they will have some points of operational
     vulnerability

     Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the ultra-violent
     world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a result, their understanding of
     cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when
     sitting in front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
     retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online assault of
     cartels.
          o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists will
     cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these individuals are
     forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are often
     victims of extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the
     identity of these individuals will not have a significant impact on
     cartel                   operations. Politicans have been accused of
     working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before, however
     there has yet to be any consequences from this. by \"no consequences\"
     what exactly do you mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and
     that happens all the time.
          o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels are
     willing to go protect their operations.
             o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
             o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science community
     before, coercing computer science majors into working for them.
             o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
     discovering hackers within Mexico.
     need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply publishing
     tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the same camp as
     the bloggers

      

     On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

       Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but there
       are several issues to address and fix here.

       These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
       discussion:

            o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but we
       can't gloss over that fact
            o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference between
       stealing bank records from government computers and overloading
       www.loszetas.com main page.
            o     There's no thought out process of what sort of information
       could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is kept online and
       accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be talking about
       identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops, politicians and
       businessmen who need to worry about what anon is going to be saying.
       Think about why the bloggers and media were killed in previous
       instances. Was it because they revealed operational details, because
       they acted as informants, because they exposed links with officials or
       because they somehow sullied the cartel's reputation? In short, what
       kind of information is damaging to the cartels themselves?
            o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
       realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure of
       damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for the
       technical ability by a very small number of its members to infiltrate
       certain networks and databases and steal information. Now what kind of
       information would a cartel keep on a network that is connected to the
       internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could information be found?
       Government databases? Once we know what kind of information is
       accessible, we can also know more about the consequences of
       dissemination.
            o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
       back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings done by
       people who may not understand the difference between an anon hacker
       and a blogger.

       On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

         wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

         -------- Original Message --------

          Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
             Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
             From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
         Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
               To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

         you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a lot
         more work

         You need to lay out:

         a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section is
         unclear
         b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
         therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
         c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
         d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone who
         breaches their systems or exposes their connections

         I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
         insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant levels
         of sophistication in their online presence, to include the use of
         cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no reason to
         assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
         protected fashion.

         Karen Hooper
         Latin America Analyst
         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
         c: 512.750.7234
         STRATFOR
         www.stratfor.com
         On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

         On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

         Link: themeData

         Trigger

         Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
         Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed out
         at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
         Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released depicting...?
         a person talking? a voice? words on a screen? exactly when?.  With
         the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
         the criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of
         Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
         journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker group
         demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise face
         consequences. The potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal
         cartels and hackers, presents an unprecedented war front for the
         cartels. The vastly different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas
         leave a conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have little
         experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no experience
         with the cartels. I do not believe for a second that the cartels
         have no experience with hackers.

          

         In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
         day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of
         releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up
         front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back.
         Provide enough details so we understand who this guy is and why/how
         he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of possessing
         revealing information on cartel members and operations are true,
         cartels will likely respond with violence against individuals
         revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you mean Anonymous
         members?. It also is likely that public disclosure of GOM officials
         who collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving the
         Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this means. You
         mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel
         will be able to retaliate against Anonymous remains unanswered .
         However, cartels will continue their threats against any individual
         using online media WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not
         talking about bloggers here. against the cartels.

          

         The Battle Space

         Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
         realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere of
         the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience geographical
         boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in
         cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They are physical people
         tho live in the real world. They have names and addresses - although
         most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power base
         consists of their technical capabilities in hacking. Any information
         connected to the Internet is vulnerable to exploits by hackers.
         (Identifying the pc's of individual cartel members in the midst of
         Mexico's population could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of
         what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are
         Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in revenue,
         but it does not really matter if you don't run operations on the
         web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are also far
         less dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

         Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power base
         consists of the perceived anonymity that its members believe
         themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating through the
         internet. This gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
         and everything to practice general dickery. As the popular meme
         goes, anonymity + audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web
         of people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of
         serious IT capability. 

         The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been from
         targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

         The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
         Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
         maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
         commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money and
         issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight. There
         is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity.
         Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue and escalating
         brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are experienced in facing
         different types of threats. Cartels are always suffering at the
         hands of cartel on cartel violence. While battling each other,
         cartels still face arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels
         wish to avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money, cartels
         have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists and online
         bloggers in order to cover details of their operations. ok... but
         that's kind of a red herrng for this discussion. You need to focus
         on the possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume
         they have no cyber presence.

          

         Anonymous' Weapons

         Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
         criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
         combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly disseminating
         sensitive information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel
         statements via social media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean
         so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
         cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance of a
         targeted information operations campaign by technically elite
         individuals can not be overlooked should not be underestimated.
         Cartels view main stream media outlets and social media blogs as
         such a threat to their operations, that they have continued to
         target journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los
         Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the
         body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who denounce
         cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not
         really addressing the subheading

         As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet risks
         disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest Anonymous
         is capable of possessing information they threaten to release. By
         releasing identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
         cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those individuals.
         Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive information is limited
         by what is available via the Internet. Government computers
         connected to the Internet should always be considered a possibility
         of an attack. However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the
         US governments computer networks, information available to Mexico's
         intelligence collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you
         trying to say here? This isn't clear at all

          

         Cartel's Defense

                     A counter response to the video? by the cartels has yet
         to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped member by
         Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed
         by hackers so... how has there not been a counter response? also
         this undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is soley
         internet based, and underlines the vulnerabilities of associated
         members. How did they find teh Anonymous member? The answer to that
         could very well give you some indication to the technical ability of
         the cartels . As Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world
         wide web , the cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely
         are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole
         agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume
         (and we have good intel indicating that) they are working on
         disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in
         any region of the world. Personal information including locations is
         only available if a hacker chooses to divulge it or if the subject
         of the attack is savvy enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only
         work for Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
         online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
         employing hackers of their own under their payroll? Stranger things
         have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                     Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
         Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the help of
         computer science majors through personal threats has been reported
         in the past where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels
         operate in the world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they
         will likely need the assistance of technical experts to help combat
         any threat by computer hackers.  While identifying bloggers inside
         of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is unlikely cartels are capable
         of identifying any hackers operating outside of Mexico. Even law
         enforcement agencies such as the FBi, with far more technical
         experience and resources than cartels, struggle to find hackers
         through investigations. A) How do you know they are not in Mexico?
         (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not
         all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                     In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
         likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with, brute
         force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT operations within
         Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals
         with alleged connections to hacker communities will likely be
         targeted and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and
         public display of violence will likely continue to be used to scare
         online media into submission i'm not really seeing the online
         media-international hacking group connection here.  The cruel
         manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer hackers
         have unlikely encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
         cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will remain to
         be seen until cartels are able to seek out and capture members of
         the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the collective bluff and
         simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 18:19:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1478111_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1478219,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   Good point. 
   In terrorist terms they are more like grassroots people than AQ core. 
   From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:11:05 -0500
   To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
   Somehow we have to stop referring to 'anonymous' as a monolith.  They are
   a bunch of different people that essentially get together in an
   online-form of a mob to carry out some action. I'm not sure how to do this
   in writing consistently.  But let's start with shit like 'people joining
   Anonymous chatrooms and claiming to be part of the movement' or something
   like that. 

   Comments in green below.  This is coming together nicely. 

   On 10/24/11 11:19 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

     do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of
     these in the US?
      What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
     I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
     whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
     because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
     revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of
     understanding of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is
     expendable to cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of
     coercion.

     Anonymous does not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
     cartels.  mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of el
     chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication as a
     tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable intelligence,
     the government will use it against the cartels. That's a physical
     threat, if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify that
     Anonymous can not directly effect physical security. Any impact to the
     cartel in revealing information will be from actions of rival cartels or
     the GoM. They may release information on a given politician being linked
     to the cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the politician will feel
     an impact (Just because Anonymous says there is a link, doesn't make it
     true). It would be up to others to take action.  I think the way you
     have it worded in the above sentence is good.  Follow with a sentence
     explaining the rest of it, because readers will have the same question
     Karen did.  Something like 'Rather, the threat to cartels would come in
     what information anonymous could expose that is useful to their enemies'

     Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online
     activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to conduct
     significant logistics and business online. We don't know how much, but
     we do know they will have some points of operational vulnerability I
     have heard of cartels doing business online, but don't have specific
     examples which could be used in assessing their vulnerability online.

     by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired,
     arrested or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I
     should say, there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out
     politicians as colluding.
     On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

       Karen Hooper
       Latin America Analyst
       o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
       c: 512.750.7234
       STRATFOR
       www.stratfor.com
       On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
       Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
       possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
       Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by people using the
       banner of Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on
       cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
       find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual being
       kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico and
       Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual posting
       flyers ['critical of cartels'?] in Veracruz as part of the Operation
       Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation. [this is good and
       will be enough information to go with, though you'll need a quick
       explanation of what 'operation paperstorm' is.  Adding something in
       the explaining the flyers will work]

       Link: themeData
       Anonymous, a decentralized hacker collective  famous for distributed
       denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government and corporate websites,
       lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
       denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video depicting a
       masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on October 10? With
       the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards
       the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities
       of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and journalists who collude with
       criminal cartels do they specify whether or not these are all in
       Mexico? Are some of these in the US?
        What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
       group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
       face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
       was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
       their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
       potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
       presents a unique threat towards TCOs [If TCO= transnational criminal
       organization, it's not really unique.  Many such organizations do
       their crimes online, and have been hacked in response--like the
       nigerian princess scams. I think you should just say it's a unique
       threat to DTOs] . We know of cartels lashing out at online bloggers,
       but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches
       from hackers before. 

       What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
            o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security threat
       to Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to
       the head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using
       publication as a tool to force government action. If you reveal
       actionable intelligence, the government will use it against the
       cartels. That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
            o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
       media
            o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out
       at cartels

       While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
       threat, if it had access to certain types of information:

               -The threat is in the information they can expose that may be
   of use to any cartel enemies.  That could be to the government or other
   cartels or even local citizens (the last one may be a stretch, but i could
   imagine someone discrediting cartel members in the eyes of the public).

            o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims tocut possess
       identifiable information on cartel members 
            o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
       cartels [cut this part here, and make the point at the end of this
       section/paragraph]
            o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
       identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in
       the realm of possibilities for
                   Anonymous
                   o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
       illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are
       known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't
       know how much, but we do know they will have some points of
       operational vulnerability

      -They claim to have information on those that collude with cartels 
   (use the stuff you have above].  Releasing such information could hurt
   cartels' support networks, but most of these people are also easily
   replaceable. 
               -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents have
   access to, and doubt they have such information that provides any sort of
   existential threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 

       Most Anonymous hackers are likely far removed from the ultra-violent
       world of drug trafficking in Mexico, but it's quite possible that some
       of its members in this campaign are in Mexico and opposed to the
       violence [or something like that.  my limited understanding is there
       are still activist crusader-types in Mexico, yeah?  it seems very
       possible those with a bit of time or computer skills could have joined
       up with anonymous] . As a result, their understanding of cartel
       activities may be limited. Anonymous members in other countries may
       act with confidence when sitting in front of a computer, but this may
       blind them to any possible retribution. They may not even know the
       impact of any online assault of cartels.  [the part below and above is
       written rather normatively.  We need to take that out.  just state the
       facts]
            o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists will
       cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these individuals are
       forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi drivers are often
       victims of extortion or coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the
       identity of these individuals will not have a significant impact on
       cartel                   operations. Politicans have been accused of
       working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before, however
       there has yet to be any consequences from this. by \"no consequences\"
       what exactly do you mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and
       that happens all the time.
            o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels are
       willing to go protect their operations.
               o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
               o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
       community before, coercing computer science majors into working for
       them.
               o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
       discovering hackers within Mexico.
       need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply publishing
       tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the same camp as
       the bloggers  [yes, i think it needs to be clear that their damage
       will be similar to what bloggers or wikileaks can do--limited.  But
       maybe more a danger to themselves, since they are no longer
       challenging governments, but criminal organizations]

        

       On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

         Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but there
         are several issues to address and fix here.

         These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
         discussion:

              o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but
         we can't gloss over that fact
              o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
         between stealing bank records from government computers and
         overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
              o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
         information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
         kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
         talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
         politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
         going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
         killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
         operational details, because they acted as informants, because they
         exposed links with officials or because they somehow sullied the
         cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of information is damaging
         to the cartels themselves?
              o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
         realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure of
         damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for the
         technical ability by a very small number of its members to
         infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal information. Now
         what kind of information would a cartel keep on a network that is
         connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
         information be found? Government databases? Once we know what kind
         of information is accessible, we can also know more about the
         consequences of dissemination.
              o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
         back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings done
         by people who may not understand the difference between an anon
         hacker and a blogger.

         On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

           wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

           -------- Original Message --------

            Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
               Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
               From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
           Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                 To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

           you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a
           lot more work

           You need to lay out:

           a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section
           is unclear
           b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
           therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
           c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
           d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone
           who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

           I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
           insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant levels
           of sophistication in their online presence, to include the use of
           cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There is no reason
           to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
           protected fashion.

           Karen Hooper
           Latin America Analyst
           o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
           c: 512.750.7234
           STRATFOR
           www.stratfor.com
           On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

           On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

           Link: themeData

           Trigger

           Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
           Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed
           out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements denouncing
           Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released
           depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a screen?
           exactly when?.  With the most recent video release, Anonymous
           makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels. Threats such as
           releasing identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
           politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels.
           The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped
           member otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
           between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
           unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly different
           operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
           Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
           believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
           not believe for a second that the cartels have no experience with
           hackers.

            

           In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as
           a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands of
           releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned right up
           front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening to hit
           back. Provide enough details so we understand who this guy is and
           why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims of
           possessing revealing information on cartel members and operations
           are true, cartels will likely respond with violence against
           individuals revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you mean
           Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public disclosure of
           GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force the GOM to take
           action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand
           what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
           effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against Anonymous
           remains unanswered . However, cartels will continue their threats
           against any individual using online media WC.... you mean tools?
           or weapons? We're not talking about bloggers here. against the
           cartels.

            

           The Battle Space

           Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
           realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere of
           the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience geographical
           boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous, exist solely in
           cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They are physical people
           tho live in the real world. They have names and addresses -
           although most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power
           base consists of their technical capabilities in hacking. Any
           information connected to the Internet is vulnerable to exploits by
           hackers. (Identifying the pc's of individual cartel members in the
           midst of Mexico's population could be quite difficult.  Remember
           that most of what Anonymous has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if
           you are Mastercard or a big company with a website that brings in
           revenue, but it does not really matter if you don't run operations
           on the web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are
           also far less dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

           Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power base
           consists of the perceived anonymity that its members believe
           themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating through the
           internet. This gives an opening for people disgruntled by anything
           and everything to practice general dickery. As the popular meme
           goes, anonymity + audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large
           web of people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort
           of serious IT capability. 

           The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been
           from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

           The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
           Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
           maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
           commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money and
           issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight. There
           is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar
           capacity.  Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue
           and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
           experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels are
           always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence. While
           battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law Enforcement
           Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in the flow of
           drugs and money, cartels have targeted media outlets. Murdering
           journalists and online bloggers in order to cover details of their
           operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for this
           discussion. You need to focus on the possible vulnerabilities of
           the cartels. Don't just assume they have no cyber presence.

            

           Anonymous' Weapons

           Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
           criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
           combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly disseminating
           sensitive information on cartels and propagating anti-cartel
           statements via social media and defaced websites in Mexico you
           mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their
           video to cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance
           of a targeted information operations campaign by technically elite
           individuals can not be overlooked should not be underestimated.
           Cartels view main stream media outlets and social media blogs as
           such a threat to their operations, that they have continued to
           target journalists and bloggers. Last month, a message signed by
           Los Zetas was placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on
           the body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
           denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive here,
           and it's not really addressing the subheading

           As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet risks
           disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest
           Anonymous is capable of possessing information they threaten to
           release. By releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
           Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
           individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
           information is limited by what is available via the Internet.
           Government computers connected to the Internet should always be
           considered a possibility of an attack. However, as with the
           compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer networks,
           information available to Mexico's intelligence collection may not
           be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This isn't
           clear at all

            

           Cartel's Defense

                       A counter response to the video? by the cartels has
           yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped
           member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the
           threat posed by hackers so... how has there not been a counter
           response? also this undermines your statements above about how
           Anonymous is soley internet based, and underlines the
           vulnerabilities of associated members. How did they find teh
           Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well give you some
           indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As Anonymous
           exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the cartels
           will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed for them
           Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies dedicated to
           fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good
           intel indicating that) they are working on disrupting the
           cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in any region
           of the world. Personal information including locations is only
           available if a hacker chooses to divulge it or if the subject of
           the attack is savvy enough to figure it out. Hackers don't only
           work for Anonymous. Cartels are only capable of dealing with their
           online enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
           employing hackers of their own under their payroll? Stranger
           things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                       Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
           Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the help
           of computer science majors through personal threats has been
           reported in the past where? What cartels? reported where?.  Since
           cartels operate in the world of urban violence and drug
           trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of technical
           experts to help combat any threat by computer hackers.  While
           identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is
           unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers operating
           outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies such as the FBi,
           with far more technical experience and resources than cartels,
           struggle to find hackers through investigations. A) How do you
           know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they kidnapped???)
           B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are equally difficult
           to track down

                       In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
           likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with, brute
           force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT operations within
           Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they wouldn't be?. 
           Individuals with alleged connections to hacker communities will
           likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco
           banners and public display of violence will likely continue to be
           used to scare online media into submission i'm not really seeing
           the online media-international hacking group connection here.  The
           cruel manners in which cartels inflict harm, is something computer
           hackers have unlikely encountered before in their life. Whether
           the fear of cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous
           will remain to be seen until cartels are able to seek out and
           capture members of the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the
           collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience
           that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:33:26",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1478219_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1478301,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   yes, marc called them a mob - and that seems accurate

   On 10/24/11 1:33 PM, scott stewart wrote:

     Good point. 
     In terrorist terms they are more like grassroots people than AQ core. 
     From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
     Reply-To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:11:05 -0500
     To: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
     Somehow we have to stop referring to 'anonymous' as a monolith.  They
     are a bunch of different people that essentially get together in an
     online-form of a mob to carry out some action. I'm not sure how to do
     this in writing consistently.  But let's start with shit like 'people
     joining Anonymous chatrooms and claiming to be part of the movement' or
     something like that. 

     Comments in green below.  This is coming together nicely. 

     On 10/24/11 11:19 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of
       these in the US?
        What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
       I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
       whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
       because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
       revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of
       understanding of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is
       expendable to cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of
       coercion.

       Anonymous does not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
       cartels.  mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of
       el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication
       as a tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable
       intelligence, the government will use it against the cartels. That's a
       physical threat, if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify
       that Anonymous can not directly effect physical security. Any impact
       to the cartel in revealing information will be from actions of rival
       cartels or the GoM. They may release information on a given politician
       being linked to the cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the
       politician will feel an impact (Just because Anonymous says there is a
       link, doesn't make it true). It would be up to others to take action. 
       I think the way you have it worded in the above sentence is good. 
       Follow with a sentence explaining the rest of it, because readers will
       have the same question Karen did.  Something like 'Rather, the threat
       to cartels would come in what information anonymous could expose that
       is useful to their enemies'

       Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online
       activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to
       conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't know how
       much, but we do know they will have some points of operational
       vulnerability I have heard of cartels doing business online, but don't
       have specific examples which could be used in assessing their
       vulnerability online.

       by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired,
       arrested or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I
       should say, there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out
       politicians as colluding.
       On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

         Karen Hooper
         Latin America Analyst
         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
         c: 512.750.7234
         STRATFOR
         www.stratfor.com
         On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
         Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
         possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
         Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by people using
         the banner of Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on
         cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
         find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual
         being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico
         and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual
         posting flyers ['critical of cartels'?] in Veracruz as part of the
         Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation. [this is
         good and will be enough information to go with, though you'll need a
         quick explanation of what 'operation paperstorm' is.  Adding
         something in the explaining the flyers will work]

         Link: themeData
         Anonymous, a decentralized hacker collective  famous for distributed
         denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government and corporate
         websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
         statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video
         depicting a masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on
         October 10? With the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold
         threats towards the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as
         releasing identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
         journalists who collude with criminal cartels do they specify
         whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of these in the US?
          What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
         group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
         face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
         was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
         their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
         potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
         presents a unique threat towards TCOs [If TCO= transnational
         criminal organization, it's not really unique.  Many such
         organizations do their crimes online, and have been hacked in
         response--like the nigerian princess scams. I think you should just
         say it's a unique threat to DTOs] . We know of cartels lashing out
         at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels
         dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

         What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
              o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
         threat to Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a
         gun to the head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for
         the using publication as a tool to force government action. If you
         reveal actionable intelligence, the government will use it against
         the cartels. That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
              o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
         media
              o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out
         at cartels

         While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
         threat, if it had access to certain types of information:

                 -The threat is in the information they can expose that may
     be of use to any cartel enemies.  That could be to the government or
     other cartels or even local citizens (the last one may be a stretch, but
     i could imagine someone discrediting cartel members in the eyes of the
     public).

              o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims tocut possess
         identifiable information on cartel members 
              o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
         cartels [cut this part here, and make the point at the end of this
         section/paragraph]
              o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
         identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in
         the realm of possibilities for
                     Anonymous
                     o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
         illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels
         are known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We
         don't know how much, but we do know they will have some points of
         operational vulnerability

        -They claim to have information on those that collude with cartels 
     (use the stuff you have above].  Releasing such information could hurt
     cartels' support networks, but most of these people are also easily
     replaceable. 
                 -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents
     have access to, and doubt they have such information that provides any
     sort of existential threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 

         Most Anonymous hackers are likely far removed from the ultra-violent
         world of drug trafficking in Mexico, but it's quite possible that
         some of its members in this campaign are in Mexico and opposed to
         the violence [or something like that.  my limited understanding is
         there are still activist crusader-types in Mexico, yeah?  it seems
         very possible those with a bit of time or computer skills could have
         joined up with anonymous] . As a result, their understanding of
         cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous members in other
         countries may act with confidence when sitting in front of a
         computer, but this may blind them to any possible retribution. They
         may not even know the impact of any online assault of cartels.  [the
         part below and above is written rather normatively.  We need to take
         that out.  just state the facts]
              o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists
         will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these
         individuals are forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi
         drivers are often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
         halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals will not have
         a significant impact on cartel                   operations.
         Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
         Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any
         consequences from this. by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you
         mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and that happens all
         the time.
              o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels
         are willing to go protect their operations.
                 o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                 o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
         community before, coercing computer science majors into working for
         them.
                 o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
         discovering hackers within Mexico.
         need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply
         publishing tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the
         same camp as the bloggers  [yes, i think it needs to be clear that
         their damage will be similar to what bloggers or wikileaks can
         do--limited.  But maybe more a danger to themselves, since they are
         no longer challenging governments, but criminal organizations]

          

         On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

           Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but
           there are several issues to address and fix here.

           These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
           discussion:

                o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but
           we can't gloss over that fact
                o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
           between stealing bank records from government computers and
           overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
           information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
           kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
           talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
           politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
           going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
           killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
           operational details, because they acted as informants, because
           they exposed links with officials or because they somehow sullied
           the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of information is
           damaging to the cartels themselves?
                o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
           realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure
           of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for
           the technical ability by a very small number of its members to
           infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal information.
           Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on a network that
           is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
           information be found? Government databases? Once we know what kind
           of information is accessible, we can also know more about the
           consequences of dissemination.
                o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
           back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings
           done by people who may not understand the difference between an
           anon hacker and a blogger.

           On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

             wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

             -------- Original Message --------

              Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                 From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
             Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                   To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

             you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a
             lot more work

             You need to lay out:

             a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section
             is unclear
             b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
             therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
             c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
             d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone
             who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

             I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
             insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant
             levels of sophistication in their online presence, to include
             the use of cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
             is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
             business online, in a protected fashion.

             Karen Hooper
             Latin America Analyst
             o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
             c: 512.750.7234
             STRATFOR
             www.stratfor.com
             On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

             On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             Link: themeData

             Trigger

             Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
             Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed
             out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
             denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released
             depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a screen?
             exactly when?.  With the most recent video release, Anonymous
             makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels. Threats such as
             releasing identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
             politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels.
             The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped
             member otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
             between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
             unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly different
             operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
             Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
             believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
             not believe for a second that the cartels have no experience
             with hackers.

              

             In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned
             as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their
             demands of releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned
             right up front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening
             to hit back. Provide enough details so we understand who this
             guy is and why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous'
             claims of possessing revealing information on cartel members and
             operations are true, cartels will likely respond with violence
             against individuals revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you
             mean Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public
             disclosure of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force the
             GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i
             don't understand what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten
             Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
             against Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will
             continue their threats against any individual using online media
             WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about
             bloggers here. against the cartels.

              

             The Battle Space

             Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
             realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere
             of the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience
             geographical boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
             exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They
             are physical people tho live in the real world. They have names
             and addresses - although most of them are likely outside of MX.)
              Anonymous' power base consists of their technical capabilities
             in hacking. Any information connected to the Internet is
             vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's of
             individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population
             could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
             has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big
             company with a website that brings in revenue, but it does not
             really matter if you don't run operations on the web. Los Z
             don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are also far less
             dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

             Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power
             base consists of the perceived anonymity that its members
             believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating
             through the internet. This gives an opening for people
             disgruntled by anything and everything to practice general
             dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity + audience = troll.
             Only a fraction of the large web of people who identify
             themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
             capability. 

             The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been
             from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

             The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
             Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
             maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
             commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
             and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight.
             There is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar
             capacity.  Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue
             and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
             experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels are
             always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence.
             While battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law
             Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in
             the flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted media
             outlets. Murdering journalists and online bloggers in order to
             cover details of their operations. ok... but that's kind of a
             red herrng for this discussion. You need to focus on the
             possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
             have no cyber presence.

              

             Anonymous' Weapons

             Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
             criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
             combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly
             disseminating sensitive information on cartels and propagating
             anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced websites in
             Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous
             admitted in their video to cartels, they cannot fight with
             guns.  The significance of a targeted information operations
             campaign by technically elite individuals can not be overlooked
             should not be underestimated. Cartels view main stream media
             outlets and social media blogs as such a threat to their
             operations, that they have continued to target journalists and
             bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was placed
             with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the body of a
             blogger. The message threatened any users who denounce cartels
             on blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not
             really addressing the subheading

             As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet
             risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest
             Anonymous is capable of possessing information they threaten to
             release. By releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
             Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
             individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
             information is limited by what is available via the Internet.
             Government computers connected to the Internet should always be
             considered a possibility of an attack. However, as with the
             compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer
             networks, information available to Mexico's intelligence
             collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to
             say here? This isn't clear at all

              

             Cartel's Defense

                         A counter response to the video? by the cartels has
             yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped
             member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the
             threat posed by hackers so... how has there not been a counter
             response? also this undermines your statements above about how
             Anonymous is soley internet based, and underlines the
             vulnerabilities of associated members. How did they find teh
             Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well give you
             some indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
             Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the
             cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed
             for them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies
             dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and
             we have good intel indicating that) they are working on
             disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can
             operate in any region of the world. Personal information
             including locations is only available if a hacker chooses to
             divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
             figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous. Cartels
             are only capable of dealing with their online enemy, if they can
             physically reach out to them. Or start employing hackers of
             their own under their payroll? Stranger things have happened,
             Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                         Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
             Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the
             help of computer science majors through personal threats has
             been reported in the past where? What cartels? reported where?. 
             Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence and drug
             trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of technical
             experts to help combat any threat by computer hackers.  While
             identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it
             is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
             operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies such
             as the FBi, with far more technical experience and resources
             than cartels, struggle to find hackers through investigations.
             A) How do you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they
             kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are
             equally difficult to track down

                         In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
             likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with,
             brute force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT
             operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they
             wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
             communities will likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel
             members.  Narco banners and public display of violence will
             likely continue to be used to scare online media into submission
             i'm not really seeing the online media-international hacking
             group connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
             inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
             encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of cartel
             violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will remain to be
             seen until cartels are able to seek out and capture members of
             the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the collective bluff
             and simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can
             inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:39:58",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1478301_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1478323,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   if anonymous outs taxi cab drivers working with Zeta, they are dead.  that
   is both simple and devastating.  If they release email accounts of GOM
   folks, and there are cartel members in that address book that would be
   devastating.  I think our definitions of devastating are different.  I
   agree the ability of these folks to bring down governments is minimal, but
   I am willing to bet the next deep throat scenario will come via a hacker
   and information they are able to steal. 

   On 10/24/11 3:12 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     1. Look at the anonymous hackers tacked down already

     2. NSA will tell you otherwise.  The question is if the attack is high
     priority enough.  Many people assume there is no attribution because
     there is no response, but I don't think that is accurate. 
     has NSA told you otherwise?  i am unclear, are you saying the entire
     darknet is mapped, or could be mapped, only it isn't because the NSA
     doesn't care or doens't share? 
     3.  Your example is short-sighted.  You don't just open a new laptop and
     start hacking e-mail addresses.  A cyber attack involves much more than
     a recently bought laptop.  In the same way there is an attack cycle for
     a terrorist attack or crime, there is one for a cyber attack.  A very
     simple attack may be as hard to trace as a nearly-random mugging in the
     dark in a neighborhood with much more serious crime and no CCTV cameras.
     so simple=low damage, and complicated = more damage?  if you hacked
     Calderon's blackberry and found out who his contacts were, and one of
     them was Chapo's sister, it would be simple and devastating.  A more
     complicated attack, however, involves pre-operational surveillance,
     developing exploits, developing programs and code, gaining access,
     exploiting that, and carrying out an attack.  And that takes time,
     giving more time for your exposure. Look at everything that went into
     Stuxnet as a great example, that couldn't be done with one person with a
     new laptop.  All of this activity provides activity and evidence which
     helps for attribution.  Of course it is always possible to develop an
     attack, just like any other operation, that even the best law
     enforcement and national intelligence agencies have trouble or cannot
     attribute.  That's fine.  My point is that it's very difficult for
     someone to successfully use Anonymous as a cover and have NSA, GHQ, MID,
     Aman, etc, be unable to attribute it.  They may not choose to cover it
     if it is small scale crime, however. 
     On 10/24/11 1:38 PM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       I wouldn't doubt using Anonymous as a cover for state sponsored cyber
       warfare. Not sure the number of benefits in actually doing that, since
       you can conduct a cyber attack without associating with a hacker group
       and still deny / cover actions on behalf of the State. An individual
       attacking US computer assets from China, may be working by himself or
       on behalf of the Chinese government, but unless the US has other intel
       on the Chinese government's cyber warfare activities in order to
       corroborate there is little capability to distinguish.

       It is very difficult to track down hackers. Computer network
       operations do not fall under the discipline of SIGINT. Assets from
       SIGINT would not directly help you track an individual responsible for
       hacking State run servers. In the past, I have turned to SIGINT
       organizations for collections on computer related material, but this
       was due to the US being behind in cyber warfare, and not knowing where
       to assign responsibility. However, this has changed dramatically in
       the last couple of years.

       Online activities, with adequate OPSEC, truly are anonymous. As an
       extreme scenario of OPSEC: If I purchase a laptop in cash, go to a
       Starbucks with free public wifi, and never attribute the online
       activity to something revealing (accessing personal email accounts,
       tweeting, entering personal information to the laptop, etc..), and
       begin hacking government email accounts then never use the laptop
       again. Unless LEA could get an accurate description of my appearance
       from Starbuck's patrons or possible security cameras, I can not think
       of way to identify me.

       Governments, attempting to track cyber enemies, do not refer to these
       enemies as individuals. Instead as generic entities tied to specific
       computer-related activities because of the difficulty in identifying
       individuals.

       I think the most likely way for a \"Anonymous cover\" to be blown, would
       be the chatter in all the IRC channels. But what if a common
       participant in \"Anonymous\" activities, was working for a State?
       Anonymous has denounced state governments before, if that State agent
       organizes an attack amongst his IRC / Twitter buddies, what signs
       could a LEA look for to distinguish?

       On 10/24/11 12:38 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         In reply to Kerley (my comments on the discussion coming in a bit)

         1. Anonymous has not shown the capability to do anything actually
         harmful or devastating.  I'm not saying they can't, but i'm very
         doubtfoul.  Tristan's discussion shows the first real case where
         they could do some minor damage--to individual people, not not to an
         organization or anything that would come as a serious or strategic
         threat. 

         2. Attribution by the world' leading SIGINT agencies is actually
         pretty good.  I see the fear of using 'anonymous' as a cover, but
         that would be pretty easy to bungle, and could probably still be
         attributed if important enough to those agencies.  The recent attack
         on Sony actually brings this issue up- Whoever is calling themselves
         anonymous denies they did it.  And keep in mind how much they have
         claimed an publicized attacks in the past, even before they were
         carried out.  The attack on the Playstation Network was more
         sophisticated than anonymous' usual work (though potentially
         coordinated with Anonymous' DDOS attacks that distracted Sony's IT
         security).  But whoever did it, again, no real damage came of it. 
         Congress is holding hearings over data security, but this is no
         different than the OC groups stealing your credit card information. 
         LE will go after them, have some success, but the threat is not that
         large. 
         On 10/24/11 11:04 AM, Kerley Tolpolar wrote:

           Link: themeData

           I see the Zetas/Anonymous affairs as a good opportunity to have a
           broader piece on Anonymous. I believe our readers no nothing, or
           almost nothing about what this group is and the threat it poses.
           Reviewing their list of attacks
           (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29), in most of
           the cases, they are the \"good\" guys, sort of a Robin Hood of the
           internet . The interesting thing when it comes to their
           interactions with the cartels is the dubious role they play: at
           the same time they can be fighting crime by revealing cartel
           members/supporters, but they can also put lives in risk.

           However, I believe this is only one of the threats posed by
           Anonymous. The idea that states, and anyone else on Earth, can
           conduct a cyber attack under \"Anonymous\" is worrisome.
           (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/blogs/security-bullet-in-10000166/akamai-cyber-spies-are-hiding-behind-anonymous-10024573/)

           If I run an organization, if I am responsible for government
           websites, or if I am just a internet user, I would like to know
           more about these guys. Who they are? What are they interested in?
           How they operate? Who they have targeted so far? How can I defend
           myself from them? In what countries are they active? Should I
           worry about them at all? Can I use them to achieve any particular
           goal?

           On 10/24/11 10:22 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

             nice.  i still think the central focus, and what everything else
             can build off of, is that Anonymous doesn't know the threat they
             pose to innocent people caught up in the terror that is Mexico. 
             By focusing on journalists or taxi drivers they show little
             understanding of the situation.  This has long term implications
             in not just Mexico.  They don't consider the consequences of
             their actions and they act without understanding the
             environment.  It was the same when they released information on
             the Sony Playstation network to protest Sony.  They hurt
             innocent people to prove a point. 

             On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

               Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
               possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
               Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by
               Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on cartels
               as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
               find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the
               individual being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites
               (Anonymous Mexico and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it
               may be an individual posting flyers in Veracruz as part of the
               Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation.

               Link: themeData
               Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for
               distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government
               websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
               statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a
               video depicting a masked individual addressing Mexican drug
               cartels on October 10? With the most recent video release,
               Anonymous makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels in
               Mexico. Threats such as releasing identities of taxi drivers,
               police, politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal
               cartels. The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow
               kidnapped member otherwise face consequences. In the
               Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned as a
               day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their demands
               of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The potential of
               conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
               presents a unique threat towards TCOs. We know of cartels
               lashing out at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any
               reporting on cartels dealing with any headaches from hackers
               before. 

               What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
                    o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
               threat to Mexican cartels.
                    o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit
               online media
                    o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to
               lash out at cartels

               While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose
               a threat
                    o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims to possess
               identifiable information on cartel members
                    o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could
               acquire on cartels
                    o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or
               communications, identifiable information on cartels members
               have to be considered in the realm of possibilities for
                           Anonymous
                           o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to
               reveal illicit online activity (child pornography rings)

               Anonymous hackers likely have not been involved in the
               ultra-violent world of drug trafficking in Mexico. As a
               result, their understanding of cartel activities may be
               limited. Anonymous may act with confidence when sitting in
               front of a computer, but this may blind them to any possible
               retribution. They may not even know the impact of any online
               assault of cartels.
                    o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and
               journalists will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some
               of these individuals are forced to collude with cartels.    
                         Taxi drivers are often victims of extortion or
               coerced to act as halcones. Revealing the identity of these
               individuals will not have a significant impact on cartel    
                             operations. Politicans have been accused of
               working with cartels (Guerrero & Veracruz' governor) before,
               however there has yet to be any consequences from this.
                    o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent
               cartels are willing to go protect their operations.
                       o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                       o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
               community before, coercing computer science majors into
               working for them.
                       o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
               discovering hackers within Mexico.

                

               On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                 Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea
                 but there are several issues to address and fix here.

                 These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
                 discussion:

                      o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's
                 fine but we can't gloss over that fact
                      o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a
                 difference between stealing bank records from government
                 computers and overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                      o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
                 information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of
                 info is kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You
                 seem to be talking about identities, whose? If anything it's
                 dirty cops, politicians and businessmen who need to worry
                 about what anon is going to be saying. Think about why the
                 bloggers and media were killed in previous instances. Was it
                 because they revealed operational details, because they
                 acted as informants, because they exposed links with
                 officials or because they somehow sullied the cartel's
                 reputation? In short, what kind of information is damaging
                 to the cartels themselves?
                      o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon
                 can realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes
                 a measure of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence
                 capacity except for the technical ability by a very small
                 number of its members to infiltrate certain networks and
                 databases and steal information. Now what kind of
                 information would a cartel keep on a network that is
                 connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else
                 could information be found? Government databases? Once we
                 know what kind of information is accessible, we can also
                 know more about the consequences of dissemination.
                      o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to
                 trace back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of
                 killings done by people who may not understand the
                 difference between an anon hacker and a blogger.

                 On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

                   wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

                   -------- Original Message --------

                    Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                       Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                       From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
                   Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                         To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

                   you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to
                   need a lot more work

                   You need to lay out:

                   a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger
                   section is unclear
                   b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is,
                   and therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
                   c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security
                   anything
                   d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill
                   anyone who breaches their systems or exposes their
                   connections

                   I also just want to point out that we have reasonable
                   reliable insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some
                   significant levels of sophistication in their online
                   presence, to include the use of cyber currencies and
                   significant IT capacity. There is no reason to assume that
                   Los Zetas don't also conduct business online, in a
                   protected fashion.

                   Karen Hooper
                   Latin America Analyst
                   o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
                   c: 512.750.7234
                   STRATFOR
                   www.stratfor.com
                   On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

                   On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

                   Link: themeData

                   Trigger

                   Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
                   Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?,
                   lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
                   statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including
                   a video released depicting...? a person talking? a voice?
                   words on a screen? exactly when?.  With the most recent
                   video release, Anonymous makes bold threats towards the
                   criminal cartels. Threats such as releasing identities of
                   Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
                   journalists who collude with criminal cartels. The hacker
                   group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member
                   otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
                   between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
                   unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly
                   different operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a
                   conflict both Anonymous and the cartels have little
                   experience in handling. i believe that Anonymous has no
                   experience with the cartels. I do not believe for a second
                   that the cartels have no experience with hackers.

                    

                   In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was
                   mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous'
                   reaction if their demands of releasing a kidnapped member
                   this should be mentioned right up front. Cartels have a
                   member, Anonymous is threatening to hit back. Provide
                   enough details so we understand who this guy is and
                   why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous' claims
                   of possessing revealing information on cartel members and
                   operations are true, cartels will likely respond with
                   violence against individuals revealed as opposing cartel
                   members huh? you mean Anonymous members?. It also is
                   likely that public disclosure of GOM officials who collude
                   with DTOs will force the GOM to take action, giving the
                   Anonymous threat complexity i don't understand what this
                   means. You mean the GOM will threaten Anonymous?. How
                   effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate against
                   Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will
                   continue their threats against any individual using online
                   media WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking
                   about bloggers here. against the cartels.

                    

                   The Battle Space

                   Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two
                   separate realities from each other. Anonymous operates
                   solely in sphere of the computer networks. Anonymous does
                   not experience geographical boundaries. All personalities
                   within Anonymous, exist solely in cyber space.  (That is
                   not entirely true. They are physical people tho live in
                   the real world. They have names and addresses - although
                   most of them are likely outside of MX.)  Anonymous' power
                   base consists of their technical capabilities in hacking.
                   Any information connected to the Internet is vulnerable to
                   exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's of individual
                   cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population could
                   be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
                   has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or
                   a big company with a website that brings in revenue, but
                   it does not really matter if you don't run operations on
                   the web. Los Z don't make much money via e-commerce.  They
                   are also far less dependent on the web than the
                   jihadists.)

                   Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's
                   power base consists of the perceived anonymity that its
                   members believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by
                   operating through the internet. This gives an opening for
                   people disgruntled by anything and everything to practice
                   general dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity +
                   audience = troll. Only a fraction of the large web of
                   people who identify themselves as \"anonymous\" have any
                   sort of serious IT capability. 

                   The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has
                   been from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

                   The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in
                   US and Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always
                   looking to maximize profits and expand. But they are
                   bricks and mortar commerce. Yes..... but they use the
                   internet to launder money and issue commands. We know that
                   Sinaloa does that from insight. There is no reason to
                   assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar capacity. 
                   Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue and
                   escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
                   experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels
                   are always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel
                   violence. While battling each other, cartels still face
                   arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to
                   avoid any hindrance in the flow of drugs and money,
                   cartels have targeted media outlets. Murdering journalists
                   and online bloggers in order to cover details of their
                   operations. ok... but that's kind of a red herrng for this
                   discussion. You need to focus on the possible
                   vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
                   have no cyber presence.

                    

                   Anonymous' Weapons

                   Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions
                   against criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous'
                   only ability to combat cartels lay in information
                   operations, mainly disseminating sensitive information on
                   cartels and propagating anti-cartel statements via social
                   media and defaced websites in Mexico you mean so far and
                   that we know of?. As Anonymous admitted in their video to
                   cartels, they cannot fight with guns.  The significance of
                   a targeted information operations campaign by technically
                   elite individuals can not be overlooked should not be
                   underestimated. Cartels view main stream media outlets and
                   social media blogs as such a threat to their operations,
                   that they have continued to target journalists and
                   bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was
                   placed with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the
                   body of a blogger. The message threatened any users who
                   denounce cartels on blogging websites. getting repetitive
                   here, and it's not really addressing the subheading

                   As stated earlier, any information connected to the
                   internet risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample
                   reason to suggest Anonymous is capable of possessing
                   information they threaten to release. By releasing
                   identities of individuals cooperating with Mexican
                   cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
                   individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
                   information is limited by what is available via the
                   Internet. Government computers connected to the Internet
                   should always be considered a possibility of an attack.
                   However, as with the compartmentalized nature of the US
                   governments computer networks, information available to
                   Mexico's intelligence collection may not be easy to
                   acquire.  what are you trying to say here? This isn't
                   clear at all

                    

                   Cartel's Defense

                               A counter response to the video? by the
                   cartels has yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous'
                   claims of a kidnapped member by Los Zetas suggest Los
                   Zetas have begun addressing the threat posed by hackers
                   so... how has there not been a counter response? also this
                   undermines your statements above about how Anonymous is
                   soley internet based, and underlines the vulnerabilities
                   of associated members. How did they find teh Anonymous
                   member? The answer to that could very well give you some
                   indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
                   Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web
                   , the cartels will face a number of challenges which
                   rarely are posed for them Again, how do you know? The USG
                   has whole agencies dedicated to fucking shit up in
                   cyberspace. You can assume (and we have good intel
                   indicating that) they are working on disrupting the
                   cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can operate in any
                   region of the world. Personal information including
                   locations is only available if a hacker chooses to divulge
                   it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
                   figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous.
                   Cartels are only capable of dealing with their online
                   enemy, if they can physically reach out to them. Or start
                   employing hackers of their own under their payroll?
                   Stranger things have happened, Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                               Cartels have been known to coerce the services
                   of Mexican citizens with a technical background.
                   Recruiting the help of computer science majors through
                   personal threats has been reported in the past where? What
                   cartels? reported where?.  Since cartels operate in the
                   world of urban violence and drug trafficking, they will
                   likely need the assistance of technical experts to help
                   combat any threat by computer hackers.  While identifying
                   bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it is
                   unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
                   operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies
                   such as the FBi, with far more technical experience and
                   resources than cartels, struggle to find hackers through
                   investigations. A) How do you know they are not in Mexico?
                   (Who was the guy they kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume
                   that not all hackers are equally difficult to track down

                               In order to compete with an online foe,
                   cartels will likely continue counter tactics they are most
                   familiar with, brute force. Cartels are still capable of
                   their HUMINT operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would
                   we assume they wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged
                   connections to hacker communities will likely be targeted
                   and interrogated by cartel members.  Narco banners and
                   public display of violence will likely continue to be used
                   to scare online media into submission i'm not really
                   seeing the online media-international hacking group
                   connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
                   inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
                   encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of
                   cartel violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will
                   remain to be seen until cartels are able to seek out and
                   capture members of the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could
                   call the collective bluff and simply go on and shrug off
                   any inconvenience that Anon can inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com

         --

         Sean Noonan

         Tactical Analyst

         Office: +1 512-279-9479

         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

         www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

 --
 Colby Martin
 Tactical Analyst
 colby.martin@stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 22:29:35",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1478323_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1481918,"Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels
","   I agree. I haven't seen any defining attributes of Anonymous as a group.
   They may not even know the identities of each other. There are several
   facebook / twitter Anonymous pages, which seem to be run by different
   individuals.

   What about defining Anonymous in terms of the individual? Instead of
   saying Anonymous attacking cartels, Individuals acting under the Anonymous
   name....

   -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents have access to,
   and doubt they have such information that provides any sort of existential
   threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 
   This is a problem with the threat assessment. Technically, anything cartel
   related (emails, online transactions, Mexican LEA information, etc.) would
   be available to a hacker, but we don't know if they have had access to
   this information, or if the hackers interested in harming cartels are
   capable. It's not even confirmed hackers have revealing information on
   cartel supporters which the video claims.

   On 10/24/11 1:11 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     Somehow we have to stop referring to 'anonymous' as a monolith.  They
     are a bunch of different people that essentially get together in an
     online-form of a mob to carry out some action. I'm not sure how to do
     this in writing consistently.  But let's start with shit like 'people
     joining Anonymous chatrooms and claiming to be part of the movement' or
     something like that. 

     Comments in green below.  This is coming together nicely. 

     On 10/24/11 11:19 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

       do they specify whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of
       these in the US?
        What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?.
       I will have to relisten to video to see if they specifically mention
       whether all examples were in Mexico. The Taxi drivers are significant
       because they were specifically mentioned as one of the targets in
       revealing cartel connections. It also demonstrates a lack of
       understanding of who they are attacking. A taxi driver in Acapulco is
       expendable to cartels, but may also be cooperating with cartels out of
       coercion.

       Anonymous does not pose a direct physical security threat to Mexican
       cartels.  mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a gun to the head of
       el chapo, but there is something to be said for the using publication
       as a tool to force government action. If you reveal actionable
       intelligence, the government will use it against the cartels. That's a
       physical threat, if one step removed.   Agreed, but I want to specify
       that Anonymous can not directly effect physical security. Any impact
       to the cartel in revealing information will be from actions of rival
       cartels or the GoM. They may release information on a given politician
       being linked to the cartels, but it's not a guarantee that the
       politician will feel an impact (Just because Anonymous says there is a
       link, doesn't make it true). It would be up to others to take action. 
       I think the way you have it worded in the above sentence is good. 
       Follow with a sentence explaining the rest of it, because readers will
       have the same question Karen did.  Something like 'Rather, the threat
       to cartels would come in what information anonymous could expose that
       is useful to their enemies'

       Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal illicit online
       activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels are known to
       conduct significant logistics and business online. We don't know how
       much, but we do know they will have some points of operational
       vulnerability I have heard of cartels doing business online, but don't
       have specific examples which could be used in assessing their
       vulnerability online.

       by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you mean? They can be fired,
       arrested or murdered, and that happens all the time.  Point taken, I
       should say, there is not a guarantee of consequences for calling out
       politicians as colluding.
       On 10/24/11 9:46 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

         Karen Hooper
         Latin America Analyst
         o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
         c: 512.750.7234
         STRATFOR
         www.stratfor.com
         On 10/24/11 9:32 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:
         Reposting this with a new shorter focus. Instead of discussing
         possible cartel responses, the focus is on what type of threat
         Anonymous can pose to cartels. The video released by people using
         the banner of Anonymous, threatens revealing personal information on
         cartels as well as states a member had been kidnapped. I could not
         find any sources outside of Anonymous' claims of the individual
         being kidnapped. According to their facebook sites (Anonymous Mexico
         and Anonymous Veracruz) it sounds like it may be an individual
         posting flyers ['critical of cartels'?] in Veracruz as part of the
         Operation Paperstorm protest, although that is speculation. [this is
         good and will be enough information to go with, though you'll need a
         quick explanation of what 'operation paperstorm' is.  Adding
         something in the explaining the flyers will work]

         Link: themeData
         Anonymous, a decentralized hacker collective  famous for distributed
         denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks on government and corporate
         websites, lashed out at drug cartels via the Internet with a
         statements denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video
         depicting a masked individual addressing Mexican drug cartels on
         October 10? With the most recent video release, Anonymous makes bold
         threats towards the criminal cartels in Mexico. Threats such as
         releasing identities of taxi drivers, police, politicians, and
         journalists who collude with criminal cartels do they specify
         whether or not these are all in Mexico? Are some of these in the US?
          What is the significance of singling out taxi drivers?. The hacker
         group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped member otherwise
         face consequences. In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th
         was mentioned as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if
         their demands of releasing a kidnapped member are not met. The
         potential of conflict between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers,
         presents a unique threat towards TCOs [If TCO= transnational
         criminal organization, it's not really unique.  Many such
         organizations do their crimes online, and have been hacked in
         response--like the nigerian princess scams. I think you should just
         say it's a unique threat to DTOs] . We know of cartels lashing out
         at online bloggers, but I haven't seen any reporting on cartels
         dealing with any headaches from hackers before. 

         What Anonymous brings to the table in a conflict
              o     Anonymous would not pose a direct physical security
         threat to Mexican cartels. mmmm... i mean, they're not going hold a
         gun to the head of el chapo, but there is something to be said for
         the using publication as a tool to force government action. If you
         reveal actionable intelligence, the government will use it against
         the cartels. That's a physical threat, if one step removed.  
              o     Anonymous' power base is the ability to exploit online
         media
              o     Anonymous hackers do not have to be in Mexico to lash out
         at cartels

         While not certain, there is a potential for Anonymous to pose a
         threat, if it had access to certain types of information:

                 -The threat is in the information they can expose that may
     be of use to any cartel enemies.  That could be to the government or
     other cartels or even local citizens (the last one may be a stretch, but
     i could imagine someone discrediting cartel members in the eyes of the
     public).

              o     It is unknown if Anonymous's claims tocut possess
         identifiable information on cartel members 
              o     It is unknown what information Anonymous could acquire on
         cartels [cut this part here, and make the point at the end of this
         section/paragraph]
              o     Bank accounts, any online transactions or communications,
         identifiable information on cartels members have to be considered in
         the realm of possibilities for
                     Anonymous
                     o    Anonymous has demonstrated it's ability to reveal
         illicit online activity (child pornography rings) and the cartels
         are known to conduct significant logistics and business online. We
         don't know how much, but we do know they will have some points of
         operational vulnerability

        -They claim to have information on those that collude with cartels 
     (use the stuff you have above].  Releasing such information could hurt
     cartels' support networks, but most of these people are also easily
     replaceable. 
                 -But we don't know what information Anonymous' adherents
     have access to, and doubt they have such information that provides any
     sort of existential threat to the cartels as a whole or their networks. 

         Most Anonymous hackers are likely far removed from the ultra-violent
         world of drug trafficking in Mexico, but it's quite possible that
         some of its members in this campaign are in Mexico and opposed to
         the violence [or something like that.  my limited understanding is
         there are still activist crusader-types in Mexico, yeah?  it seems
         very possible those with a bit of time or computer skills could have
         joined up with anonymous] . As a result, their understanding of
         cartel activities may be limited. Anonymous members in other
         countries may act with confidence when sitting in front of a
         computer, but this may blind them to any possible retribution. They
         may not even know the impact of any online assault of cartels.  [the
         part below and above is written rather normatively.  We need to take
         that out.  just state the facts]
              o     Revealing information on taxi drivers and journalists
         will cost lives. Anonymous may not understand some of these
         individuals are forced to collude with cartels.               Taxi
         drivers are often victims of extortion or coerced to act as
         halcones. Revealing the identity of these individuals will not have
         a significant impact on cartel                   operations.
         Politicans have been accused of working with cartels (Guerrero &
         Veracruz' governor) before, however there has yet to be any
         consequences from this. by \"no consequences\" what exactly do you
         mean? They can be fired, arrested or murdered, and that happens all
         the time.
              o     Anonymous hackers may not understand the extent cartels
         are willing to go protect their operations.
                 o    Any hackers in Mexico are at risk.
                 o    Cartels have reached out to the computer science
         community before, coercing computer science majors into working for
         them.
                 o    This provides the cartels with the possibility of
         discovering hackers within Mexico.
         need to mention that if Anonymous goes the route of simply
         publishing tactical details of cartel activities, they'll be in the
         same camp as the bloggers  [yes, i think it needs to be clear that
         their damage will be similar to what bloggers or wikileaks can
         do--limited.  But maybe more a danger to themselves, since they are
         no longer challenging governments, but criminal organizations]

          

         On 10/17/11 10:19 AM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

           Oh man we are threading new ground here - I like the idea but
           there are several issues to address and fix here.

           These are the bullets of my main analytical concern with the
           discussion:

                o     we don't know who got kidnapped or why. that's fine but
           we can't gloss over that fact
                o     \"hackers\" is a blanket term - there's a difference
           between stealing bank records from government computers and
           overloading www.loszetas.com main page.
                o     There's no thought out process of what sort of
           information could anon have on the cartels. What kind of info is
           kept online and accessible to potential attacks? You seem to be
           talking about identities, whose? If anything it's dirty cops,
           politicians and businessmen who need to worry about what anon is
           going to be saying. Think about why the bloggers and media were
           killed in previous instances. Was it because they revealed
           operational details, because they acted as informants, because
           they exposed links with officials or because they somehow sullied
           the cartel's reputation? In short, what kind of information is
           damaging to the cartels themselves?
                o     Once you identify this info - think about if anon can
           realistically access it and disseminate it so it causes a measure
           of damage. Anon doesn't have any intelligence capacity except for
           the technical ability by a very small number of its members to
           infiltrate certain networks and databases and steal information.
           Now what kind of information would a cartel keep on a network that
           is connected to the internet (aka no intranet)? Where else could
           information be found? Government databases? Once we know what kind
           of information is accessible, we can also know more about the
           consequences of dissemination.
                o     What's the IT capacity of a cartel? Sufficient to trace
           back attacks? If it's not, there risks to be a lot of killings
           done by people who may not understand the difference between an
           anon hacker and a blogger.

           On 10/17/11 9:47 AM, Colby Martin wrote:

             wanted to forward Karen's thoughts to analyst

             -------- Original Message --------

              Subject: Re: [CT] DISCUSSION - Anonymous vs Cartels 
                 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:28:18 -0500            
                 From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>         
             Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   
                   To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>                   

             you've got some of the issues here, but this is going to need a
             lot more work

             You need to lay out:

             a) What exactly is going on with Anonymous, your trigger section
             is unclear
             b) what our assessment of the online cartel presence is, and
             therefore their vulnerabilities and capabilities
             c) How capable is Anonymous of breaching high security anything
             d) how far the cartels would be willing to travel to kill anyone
             who breaches their systems or exposes their connections

             I also just want to point out that we have reasonable reliable
             insight that Sinaloa at the very least has some significant
             levels of sophistication in their online presence, to include
             the use of cyber currencies and significant IT capacity. There
             is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't also conduct
             business online, in a protected fashion.

             Karen Hooper
             Latin America Analyst
             o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
             c: 512.750.7234
             STRATFOR
             www.stratfor.com
             On 10/17/11 8:46 AM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

             On 10/17/11 8:25 AM, Tristan Reed wrote:

             Link: themeData

             Trigger

             Recently, Mexican cartels have faced a new enemy, hackers.
             Anonymous, a well-publicized hacker group famous for...?, lashed
             out at drug cartels via the Internet with a statements
             denouncing Mexico's criminal cartels, including a video released
             depicting...? a person talking? a voice? words on a screen?
             exactly when?.  With the most recent video release, Anonymous
             makes bold threats towards the criminal cartels. Threats such as
             releasing identities of Mexican? American? taxi drivers, police,
             politicians, and journalists who collude with criminal cartels.
             The hacker group demanded Los Zetas release a fellow kidnapped
             member otherwise face consequences. The potential of conflict
             between Mexico's criminal cartels and hackers, presents an
             unprecedented war front for the cartels. The vastly different
             operations of Anonymous and Los Zetas leave a conflict both
             Anonymous and the cartels have little experience in handling. i
             believe that Anonymous has no experience with the cartels. I do
             not believe for a second that the cartels have no experience
             with hackers.

              

             In the Anonymous' video, this coming November 5th was mentioned
             as a day cartels could expect Anonymous' reaction if their
             demands of releasing a kidnapped member this should be mentioned
             right up front. Cartels have a member, Anonymous is threatening
             to hit back. Provide enough details so we understand who this
             guy is and why/how he was abducted. are not met. If Anonymous'
             claims of possessing revealing information on cartel members and
             operations are true, cartels will likely respond with violence
             against individuals revealed as opposing cartel members huh? you
             mean Anonymous members?. It also is likely that public
             disclosure of GOM officials who collude with DTOs will force the
             GOM to take action, giving the Anonymous threat complexity i
             don't understand what this means. You mean the GOM will threaten
             Anonymous?. How effectively any cartel will be able to retaliate
             against Anonymous remains unanswered . However, cartels will
             continue their threats against any individual using online media
             WC.... you mean tools? or weapons? We're not talking about
             bloggers here. against the cartels.

              

             The Battle Space

             Anonymous's and the cartels activities exist in two separate
             realities from each other. Anonymous operates solely in sphere
             of the computer networks. Anonymous does not experience
             geographical boundaries. All personalities within Anonymous,
             exist solely in cyber space.  (That is not entirely true. They
             are physical people tho live in the real world. They have names
             and addresses - although most of them are likely outside of MX.)
              Anonymous' power base consists of their technical capabilities
             in hacking. Any information connected to the Internet is
             vulnerable to exploits by hackers. (Identifying the pc's of
             individual cartel members in the midst of Mexico's population
             could be quite difficult.  Remember that most of what Anonymous
             has done are DDOS attacks.  Sucks if you are Mastercard or a big
             company with a website that brings in revenue, but it does not
             really matter if you don't run operations on the web. Los Z
             don't make much money via e-commerce.  They are also far less
             dependent on the web than the jihadists.)

             Anonymous is known for its hacking endevours, but it's power
             base consists of the perceived anonymity that its members
             believe themselves to have, real or otherwise, by operating
             through the internet. This gives an opening for people
             disgruntled by anything and everything to practice general
             dickery. As the popular meme goes, anonymity + audience = troll.
             Only a fraction of the large web of people who identify
             themselves as \"anonymous\" have any sort of serious IT
             capability. 

             The largest threat towards a hacker's existence so far has been
             from targeted arrests by Law Enforcement Agencies.

             The criminal cartels in Mexico operate on the streets in US and
             Mexican cities. They are run as a business, always looking to
             maximize profits and expand. But they are bricks and mortar
             commerce. Yes..... but they use the internet to launder money
             and issue commands. We know that Sinaloa does that from insight.
             There is no reason to assume that Los Zetas don't have a similar
             capacity.  Their power base is built by large amounts of revenue
             and escalating brutal violence. Cartels like Los Zetas, are
             experienced in facing different types of threats. Cartels are
             always suffering at the hands of cartel on cartel violence.
             While battling each other, cartels still face arrests by Law
             Enforcement Agencies. As cartels wish to avoid any hindrance in
             the flow of drugs and money, cartels have targeted media
             outlets. Murdering journalists and online bloggers in order to
             cover details of their operations. ok... but that's kind of a
             red herrng for this discussion. You need to focus on the
             possible vulnerabilities of the cartels. Don't just assume they
             have no cyber presence.

              

             Anonymous' Weapons

             Whatever impact will be felt due to Anonymous' actions against
             criminal cartels has yet to be seen. Anonymous' only ability to
             combat cartels lay in information operations, mainly
             disseminating sensitive information on cartels and propagating
             anti-cartel statements via social media and defaced websites in
             Mexico you mean so far and that we know of?. As Anonymous
             admitted in their video to cartels, they cannot fight with
             guns.  The significance of a targeted information operations
             campaign by technically elite individuals can not be overlooked
             should not be underestimated. Cartels view main stream media
             outlets and social media blogs as such a threat to their
             operations, that they have continued to target journalists and
             bloggers. Last month, a message signed by Los Zetas was placed
             with a dead female body  more relevantly, on the body of a
             blogger. The message threatened any users who denounce cartels
             on blogging websites. getting repetitive here, and it's not
             really addressing the subheading

             As stated earlier, any information connected to the internet
             risks disclosure by Anonymous. There is ample reason to suggest
             Anonymous is capable of possessing information they threaten to
             release. By releasing identities of individuals cooperating with
             Mexican cartels, Anonymous threatens the life of those
             individuals. Anonymous's ability to disseminate sensitive
             information is limited by what is available via the Internet.
             Government computers connected to the Internet should always be
             considered a possibility of an attack. However, as with the
             compartmentalized nature of the US governments computer
             networks, information available to Mexico's intelligence
             collection may not be easy to acquire.  what are you trying to
             say here? This isn't clear at all

              

             Cartel's Defense

                         A counter response to the video? by the cartels has
             yet to see fruition. However, Anonymous' claims of a kidnapped
             member by Los Zetas suggest Los Zetas have begun addressing the
             threat posed by hackers so... how has there not been a counter
             response? also this undermines your statements above about how
             Anonymous is soley internet based, and underlines the
             vulnerabilities of associated members. How did they find teh
             Anonymous member? The answer to that could very well give you
             some indication to the technical ability of the cartels . As
             Anonymous exists in abstract reality of the world wide web , the
             cartels will face a number of challenges which rarely are posed
             for them Again, how do you know? The USG has whole agencies
             dedicated to fucking shit up in cyberspace. You can assume (and
             we have good intel indicating that) they are working on
             disrupting the cartels.. Hackers threatening cartels, can
             operate in any region of the world. Personal information
             including locations is only available if a hacker chooses to
             divulge it or if the subject of the attack is savvy enough to
             figure it out. Hackers don't only work for Anonymous. Cartels
             are only capable of dealing with their online enemy, if they can
             physically reach out to them. Or start employing hackers of
             their own under their payroll? Stranger things have happened,
             Why not a Zetas 2.0?

                         Cartels have been known to coerce the services of
             Mexican citizens with a technical background. Recruiting the
             help of computer science majors through personal threats has
             been reported in the past where? What cartels? reported where?. 
             Since cartels operate in the world of urban violence and drug
             trafficking, they will likely need the assistance of technical
             experts to help combat any threat by computer hackers.  While
             identifying bloggers inside of Mexico has been demonstrated, it
             is unlikely cartels are capable of identifying any hackers
             operating outside of Mexico. Even law enforcement agencies such
             as the FBi, with far more technical experience and resources
             than cartels, struggle to find hackers through investigations.
             A) How do you know they are not in Mexico? (Who was the guy they
             kidnapped???) B) I'm goign to assume that not all hackers are
             equally difficult to track down

                         In order to compete with an online foe, cartels will
             likely continue counter tactics they are most familiar with,
             brute force. Cartels are still capable of their HUMINT
             operations within Mexico \"still\"? why would we assume they
             wouldn't be?.  Individuals with alleged connections to hacker
             communities will likely be targeted and interrogated by cartel
             members.  Narco banners and public display of violence will
             likely continue to be used to scare online media into submission
             i'm not really seeing the online media-international hacking
             group connection here.  The cruel manners in which cartels
             inflict harm, is something computer hackers have unlikely
             encountered before in their life. Whether the fear of cartel
             violence softens the confidence of Anonymous will remain to be
             seen until cartels are able to seek out and capture members of
             the hacker group.. Or the Narcos could call the collective bluff
             and simply go on and shrug off any inconvenience that Anon can
             inflict.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-24 20:50:49",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1481918_re-ct-discussion-anonymous-vs-cartels-.html","tristan.reed@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1483904,"Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta conflict
	in context
","   Just to build on my last comment - and I think this should be included in
   the piece - the cartels could just as easily try to intimidate would be
   sources ratting to anonymous as intimidate bloggers. Imagine if, after
   anonymous publishes a few juicy tidbits, Zetas hang a few headless bodies
   from a bridge accusing them of contributing to anonymous? True or not,
   cartels can intimidate both sides of the information flow and the sources
   may be more vulnerable than anonymous themselves.

   Still think a discussion of Anonymous and source handling would be pretty
   cool.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Ben West\" <ben.west@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 5:42:42 PM
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict        in context

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 4:45:43 PM
   Subject: Re: S-weekly for Comment - Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta
   conflict        in context

   On 11/1/11 1:11 PM, scott stewart wrote:

      Placing the Anonymous vs. Zeta Conflict in Context

     On Oct. 31, the online activist collective Anonymous posted a message to
     the internet  in which it stated that it was continuing with its
     campaign against the Mexican criminal cartels and their
     governmentsupporters despite the inherent danger.

      

     The messageurged inexperienced activists who might not be practicing
     proper online security measures to abstain from participating. It also
     urged individuals associated with Anonymous to not conduct physical
     pamphlet drops, participate in protests, wear or purchase Guy Fawkes
     masks, or use Guy Fawkes imagery in their internet or physical world
     activities.[Is this universally or just in Mexico?  The former points to
     problems with LE cracking down on them, the latter specifically to
     cartel retribution]  Guy Fawkes was British Catholic conspirator who was
     involved in a plot to bomb the British Parliament in 1605, and who has
     become somewhat of an Anarchist icon in the United Kingdom. The British
     celebrate Guy Fawkes Day each year on Nov. 5, and the day has special
     meaning for the anarchists.  

      

     It is not coincidental then, that in their Oct. 6 video, Anonymous set
     Nov. 5 as the deadline for Los Zetas to release the Anonymous associate
     who was allegedly kidnapped in Veracruz by Los Zetas. The Anonymous
     associate was reportedly abducted during an Anonymous leaflet campaign
     called Operation Paperstorm.

      

     The Oct. 31message acknowledged that the operation against Los Zetas,
     dubbed a**# OpCartela** is dangerous and noted that the collective would
     be assembling a hand-picked group of known and trusted associates to
     participate in a special task force to execute the operation.[hahahaha,
     this says something about leadership] It asked supporters to use a
     software widget[WC. is this the correct term?] they had developed in
     order to anonymously pass information pertaining to drug trafficking to
     the task force, which will then distribute it. 

      

     With Nov. 5, approaching, and at least some elements of Anonymous not
     backing down on their threats to Los Zetas, we thought it would be
     useful to provide some context to the present conflict between Anonymous
     and Los Zetas and to also address some of its potential implications.

      

     Context

      

     First it issignificant to understand that the physical? geographic?
     epicenter of this event is Veracruz, which  has been a very busy place
     over the past few months in terms of Mexicoa**s cartel wars. The port
     city also serves as a critical transportation hub for the narcotics
     smuggling activities of the Los Zetas cartel. Because of this, Stratfor
     has identified Veracruz as [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111024-mexican-drug-war-update-polarization-continues
     ] a bellweather city thatwill help determine the trajectory of the Los
     Zetas cartel in the coming months. 

      

     One of the big recent developments in Veracruz was the Sinaloa
     cartela**s push into the Zeta stronghold using the [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110928-mexico-security-memo-zetas-defensive-veracruz
     ] Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion (CJNG), which using the name
     Matazetas (Zeta killers) conducted some high-profile body dumps of over
     50 alleged low-level Zeta operatives on Sept. 20 and 22.  On Oct. 25,
     Mexican Marines arrested Carlos Arturo Pitalua-Carillo, a**El Bam
     Bam,a** who was Los Zetas plaza boss in Veracruz.  This means that in
     Veracruz at the present time, Los Zetas are feeling pressure from both
     the Government of Mexico and the CJNG.

      

     Into this dynamic flow, we had the Anonymous internet collective begin
     to take action in Veracruz in August. In response to what Anonymous saw
     as the state of Veracruz supporting the Los Zetas cartel, they launched
     Operation Paperstorm, in which activists who associated themselves with
     the Anonymous collective distributed leaflets throughout Veracruz
     claiming the state government supports Los Zetas.  They conducted major
     leaflet distributions on Aug. 13, 20, and 29. They also released videos
     to the internet on Aug. 26 and 29, condemning the State of Veracruz.
     (According to the Oct. 6 Anonymous video, Los Zetas allegedly kidnapped
     one of the activists involved in Operation Paperstorm.)

      

     Activities outside of Veracruz have also played a part in setting the
     stage. On Sept. 13, two people were tortured and killed and their bodies
     hung from a pedestrianoverpass in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas state.  Signs
     left with the bodies signified that Los Zetas had killed the pair
     because they had posted information pertaining to Los Zetas on blogs
     that specialize in reporting on the Mexican cartels. On Sept 26, the
     body of Marisol Macias Casteneda was found beheaded in a park in Nuevo
     Laredo.   Macias who worked for a local newspaper allegedly posted on
     cartel blogs using the nickname a**Laredo Girl.a** A message found with
     her body noted that she was killed by Los Zetas due to her online
     activities.

      

     Following the death of Laredo Girl, Anonymous claimed responsibility for
     a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack conducted against the
     official website of the state of Veracruz. Although she was killed by
     Los Zetas in Nuevo Laredo Tamaulipas, Anonymous said their attack on the
     Veracruz state website was because of the death of Laredo Girl. [can you
     attempt to explain why they linked it with veracruz?]

      

     It is also important to recognize that some members of Anonymous [again
     I hate referring to Anonymous as one entity] was also unhappy with the
     State of Veracruz over the decision of the state to prosecute two
     individuals who had posted false kidnapping reports on Twitter on Aug.
     25. The false reports alleged that a group of children had been abducted
     from a Veracruz school and the panic caused by the report allegedly
     resulted in some two dozen traffic accidents as terrified parents rushed
     to the school to check o n their children. The so-called a**twitter
     terroristsa** were initially charged with offenses that could have
     carried a 30-year sentence. Those involved in this campaign from
     Anonymous, which claims absolute freedom of speech on the internet as
     one of its foundational principles, took umbrage with this stiff penalty
     for the Twitter case a** especially because it stood in stark contrast
     with the impunity many cartel figures enjoy in Mexico. 

      

      

     Following the Oct. 6 release of the video in which Anonymous threatened
     Los Zetas if they did not release the kidnapped anonymous activist,
     Stratfor began to focus on the story, and in light of the approaching
     Nov. 5 deadline, decided to publish an, [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111028-mexicos-cartels-draw-online-activists-ire
     ] analysis of the topic, which was released on Oct. 28.  

      

     Following the release of our analysis, the topic has received a great
     deal of media coverage. This publicity has generated a very interesting
     response from Anonymous -- one that emphasizes the fast that it is a
     collective of people and not an organization.  As some
     Anonymousactivists were backing off the issue, erasing online user
     accounts[does this mean accounts of people in support of the attack?],
     suggesting that the operation against Los Zetas had been a hoax and
     claiming that no activist had been kidnapped, other activists suggested
     that the campaign should be suspended. Still other activists became more
     strident and determined in their posts, urging that the campaign
     continue. Since Anonymous is a collective, activists can pick and choose
     which actions they will participate in. that means in his case that
     those activists who want to refrain from the campaign will and those who
     want to participate will continue it.  [i see how this paragraph fits
     into your analysis the way you have it written, but I think it might go
     better at the front.  You could use the 'anonymous discussion' as a
     trigger, explain it's \"collective\" qualities and then go into the rest
     of the analysis.  This way I feel much less bad about how we refer to
     'anonymous']

      

     This will to continue was manifested[something is off in the previous
     part of the sentence] on Oct. 29, the personal website of Gustavo
     RosarioTorres, the former attorney general of the Mexican state of
     Tobasco was hacked and defaced with a message from Anonymous Mexico
     stating that Rosario was aZeta.  It was also reflected in the tone of
     the Oct. 31 message. Some activists associated with Anonymous clearly
     feel compelled to continue with the campaign due to the outpouring[WC. 
     Did they really get an outpouring? seemed like they got a lot of
     criticism and also support for going against the cartels] of public
     support they received in the wake of the media coverage. According to
     the Oct 31. Video statement: (did we see specific examples of \"public
     support\" or are we just going off of the youtube statement CLAIMING that
     they got lots of support?)

      

     a**we received many expressions of support and solidarity as well as the
     voices of people crying for help. We must remember that we are on the
     side of the people, and we cannot let down the people, especially in
     critical moments like the one they currently live in.a**

      

     We therefore anticipate that some Anonymous activists will continue the
     campaign. We also believe that Los Zetas will respond.

      

     Revenge of the Sith (Yes Kamran, I agree with Isa that Star Wars is
     better than Star Trek. What's Star Trek?) 

      

     The variouscartel groups in Mexico have long used the internet as a
     place to trumpet their triumphs on the battlefield and to taunt and even
     degrade their enemies. The cartels have posted videos of them torturing,
     executing and beheading members of opposing cartels. They also
     frequently monitor narco blogs and sometimeseven post on them.  As
     demonstrated by the blogger killings in Nuevo Laredo in September, Los
     Zetas appear to possess at least some rudimentary capability to trace
     online activity to people in thephysical world. It is not known if they
     employ their own team of dedicated cyber experts or if they rely on
     sources within the Mexican government a** although the most likely
     answer is probably a little of both.  [what about just old-fashioned
     human intelligence?  Many people discuss blogger identities both online
     and offline, something they could've picked up without network-based
     forensics.  'My brother blogs about...' and on from there.  Or by
     tracing the information the blogger had in the real world, and
     eventually getting back to the blogger]

   Tristan was talking about how the cartels were even kidnapping computer
   science students and forcing them to track anonymous down. Need to check
   with him on specifics though

      

      

     In past Anonymous actions, like the Dec. 2010 attack against Pay Pal
     following the Wikileaks case, governments in the U.S. and the UK have
     arrested numerous individuals associated with Anonymous who allegedly
     participated in the attack. In June 2011, Turkey arrested dozens of
     activists associated with Anonymousactions conducted against the Turkish
     government for its efforts to establish a national internet filtering
     system. [Need something to make a point here, maybe something like:] 
     The reality is that there is no such thing as anonymity, on the internet
     or otherwise.  Any action leaves some trail, whether digitial or
     physical.  In the same way that hackers from Anonymous develop exploits
     to access confidential information, law enforcement agencies and even
     cartels could get around encryption, examine patterns of activity and
     investigate leads that in the end identify a real person behind a
     computer. 

      

     Los Zetas, like the other Mexican cartels, do not take affronts lightly.
     Even if Anonymous is not able to provide information that will damage
     Los Zetas smuggling operations, the very fact that this group has
     decided to challenge Los Zetas publicly will result in some sort of
     response. The big question is: do theypossess the capability to
     effectively trace the organizers of the Anonymousaction against them?

      

     One problem with an entity such as Anonymous is that it is intentionally
     amorphous a** it is also as transnational as the internet, and it would
     not be surprising if many of those chosen to participate in the
     operation against Los Zetas are located outside of Mexico in locations
     such as the U.S. and Europe which are outside the immediate reach of Los
     Zetas.(the US is not out of reach, at least not on the border:
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111005-mexico-security-memo-defining-cross-border-violence)

      

     But the amorphous nature of Anonymous can also cut the other way.  If
     Los Zetas pick up and execute some random patrons from an internet cafe,
     behead them and place Guy Fawkesmasks on their heads, it will be very
     difficult to prove that they were not  associated with  Anonymous.  As
     Anonymous noted in their Oct. 31 video, this is dangerous business.(it
     would certainly be within the cartel's capacity to kill innocents and
     blame anonymous in the attempt to intimidate them into stopping their
     activity)

      

      

     The Big Picture

      

     One thing to watch as the Anonymous operation continues is the way in
     which the Mexican public reacts. Many people in the Mexican middle and
     upper classes have been deeply affected by the criminal cartels and
     theviolence the practice. We talk to many people in Mexico who are
     fearful of being kidnapped. In many communities, especially places like
     Juarez, Torreon, Monterrey and Veracruz, businessmen are being caught in
     a terrible bind. On one hand, they are receiving ever-increasing
     extortion demands from the cartels, while at the same time their
     business revenues are dwindling because people are afraid to go out due
     to the violence associated with those same cartels. This is forcing many
     businessmen[enterprises?] out of business. It is also creating a great
     deal of frustration and resentment.

      

     At the same time, Mexico has become one of the most dangerous countries
     in the world for journalists, and many media organizations practice
     heavy self-censorship to protect themselves. In the wake of the
     September blogger killings some of the narco blogs, like Blog del Narco,
     have also exhibited strong signs of fear inspired self-censorship.  
     This means that the legitimate press is not able to be of any real aid
     to the Mexican people.

      

     Mexican citizens are also frustrated with their government, which is
     well-known for corruption.  This is the sentiment feeding Anonymousa**
     original campaign in Veracruz.  This frustration has lead some people to
     begin to talk about

     vigilante groups to fight the cartels a** though that has been attempted
     before in Mexico and as we saw in the case of [link
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090714_mexico_la_familia_michoacana_expands_its_attacks
     ] La Familia MichoacA!n, which originally began as such a vigilante
     group, vigilantism frequently does not end well.

      

     This is where Anonymous may fit in. With Mexican citizens unable to rely
     on their government, the media or even armed vigilante groups for
     assistance, they may embrace Anonymous and come to view its form of
     cyber vigilantism as an outlet for their frustration -- and a perceived
     safe way to pass oninformation pertaining to cartel activities.  If this
     occurs, we may see people not just in Veracruz and other Zeta controlled
     areas providing information to Anonymous, but citizens from all over the
     country.

      

     Also, in the same way that cartels leak information togovernments in an
     effort to use them as weapons against their rivals, we could also very
     well see groups such as the Sinaloa cartel provide information on Los
     Zetas to Anonymous. This of course would provide even more reason for
     Los Zetas to strike out against the activist collective.

      

     If the Anonymous information campaign does indeed take off, and if
     Anonymous is attacked by Los Zetas, the activists could resort to
     releasing sensitive information to the U.S. Drug Enforcement
     Administration in an attempt to damage Los Zetas. This would be an
     incredible irony in light of the way Anonymous has viewed itself as an
     opponent of the U.S. government in cases like Wikileaks. (Anonymous has
     made it clear that the value they provide is a safe and private medium
     through which to pass this damning information. Their stated priority is
     to publicize information that people send to them. But, do they have a
     way to protect their sources? They likely don't have much collective
     experience in source handling. I imagine a lot of the details they get
     could put their sources in serious trouble. If I were a semi-smart
     Mexican who knew some super detailed information on the cartels, I would
     think long and hard before handing it over to these guys. This may be a
     separate piece entirely, but I think we need a discussion on source
     handling and how good hackers don't necessarily make good intelligence
     agents.)

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   STRATFOR

   T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967

   www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-01 23:46:55",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1483904_re-s-weekly-for-comment-placing-the-anonymous-vs-zeta.html","ben.west@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1495201,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
","   this dude really gives the impression that Moscow calls the shots in Kiev

   so basically, Med gets pissed b/c Timo is blowing Putin and not him, so he
   whines to Putin and says drop the B and get behind Yanu like me. Putin
   says fine, Yanu gets excited and oversteps his boundaries, and now Putin
   is like fix this shit Med and Med is like okay, but we dont know what Med
   is actually gonna do to slap Yanu around

   so what's the couterargument to this? Does Russia really have this much
   influence over the situation?  this is something we need to address in
   ukraine reassessment

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111

   CODE: UA111
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   HANDLER: Lauren

    

   Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
   But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
   this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
   begin with.

    

   You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
   power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
   Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
   solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
   Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
   easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
   her in trouble and arrested.

    

   But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
   respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
   made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
   deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
   Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
   the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
   military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
   it had been pushing for.

    

   So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
   the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
   to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
   demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.

    

   Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
   to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
   against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
   will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-14 20:55:23",1,"2012-02-28 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1495201_re-alpha-insight-ukraine-moscow-kiev-spat-ua111-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1495374,"INDIA/SOUTH ASIA-Xinhua 'Roundup': Concerns Rise About Excessive Use of Police Force in Dealing With Occupy Protesters
","   Xinhua 'Roundup': Concerns Rise About Excessive Use of Police Force in
   Dealing With Occupy Protesters
   Xinhua \"Roundup\": \"Concerns Rise About Excessive Use of Police Force in
   Dealing With Occupy Protesters\" - Xinhua
   Thursday November 3, 2011 21:09:48 GMT
   TAMPA, the United States, Nov. 3 (Xinhua) -- The peace that existed
   between U.S. law enforcement authorities and the Occupy movement is now
   over as police in many U.S. cities broke into violent clashes with
   peaceful protesters, leading to concerns about the excessive use of police
   force.

   About 30 people were arrested Thursday in Oakland, California, as police
   in riot gear fired tear gas and flashed grenades to clear a downtown
   street, where supporters of the Occupy Wall Street movement gathered.As
   many as 70 demonstrators have been arrested so far in Oakland since police
   first began using tear gas and beanbag grenades last Tuesday in an empty
   building commandeered by demonstrators. About 40 people were subsequently
   arrested on various charges.The latest arrests were made after Occupy
   Oakland protesters called for a day of general strikes and attempted
   barricade of the Port of Oakland on Wednesday, both were intended to be
   non-violent.Scott Olsen, a 24 year-old former U.S. Marine who had served
   in Afghanistan, has now become a symbol of the Occupy protesters' cause
   after he was wounded in the head from a police projectile in Oakland on
   October 25.Now recovering from his head wound, Olsen has seen Occupy Wall
   Street protesters, and other Occupy demonstrators making the phrase \"We
   are all Scott Olsen\" a mantra to be chanted, as well as a slogan to be put
   on protest signs.As criticism arose from these clashes, Howard Jordan,
   chief of Oakland Police Department for Interim Police, issued a statement
   last Friday assuring the publi c that all allegations of misconduct and
   excessive use of force are being thoroughly investigated.The Occupy
   protesters have modeled themselves after the late Indian religious,
   social, and political leader Mohandas K. Gandhi, who led nationwide
   non-violent movement against the British rulers in the first half of the
   20th century.Despite this, in less than a month, clashes between police
   and demonstrators have occurred in not only Oakland, but also Nashville,
   Tennessee; Portland, Oregon, and Atlanta, Georgia.In California's state
   capital, Sacramento, Cindy Sheehan, a noted anti-war dissenter, and 20
   other protesters were detained in mid-October for not leaving a city park,
   according to the Sacramento Police Department.\"(Sacramento) Mayor (Kevin)
   Johnson understands the frustrations expressed by Occupy Sacramento and
   respects the group 's commitment to political change through peaceful
   demonstration and the democratic process,\" Joaquin McPeek, spokesman for
   the Mayor , told Xinhua.Nonetheless, \"the City has a duty to maintain a
   safe and healthy environment in its parks. The Mayor is not in favor of
   allowing certain, special groups to make exceptions to City ordinances,\"
   McPeek added.Over two dozen protesters have been arrested in Nashville,
   Tennessee, where they took over the city's Legislative Plazaare. Now,
   protesters are defying a 10pm-6am curfew, after a local judge said they
   should not be legally jailed after being arrested.Elli Whiteway,
   spokesperson for Occupy Nashville, revealed Monday that the local chapter
   of the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit
   \"alleging that the (previously made) arrests and new regulations were
   violations of our First Amendment rights.\"About 30 Occupy protesters were
   arrested in Portland, Oregon on Sunday after clashes with the local
   police. Ten more demonstrators were arrested on Tuesday.Before they were
   arrested, they chanted \"the whole world is watching, the whole world is
   watching,\" a slogan used in the Chicago demonstrations in 1968 when the
   city hosted the Democratic National Convention. Blue-shirted,
   white-helmeted police physically struck many demonstrators with clubs and
   sticks and opening cans of tear gas to disseminate the protesters.In
   Denver, Colorado, black-helmeted, clear-shield clad police officers used
   on Sunday pepper spray and pepper balls on a crowd of Occupy
   demonstrators, arresting 20 in total.Even Tampa, Florida, where
   demonstrations have been comparatively mild, lost its status as the only
   site with no arrests in previous weeks as police made 10 arrests.\"It can
   be difficult for law enforcement to deal with civil protests, but officers
   should be well trained and follow that training to manage and respect the
   constitutionally respected rights of speech and assembly,\" said John
   Dingfelder, an attorney for the ACLU Mid-Florida Regional Office in
   Tampa.The U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) rec eives over 1,000
   complaints of police conduct every year, said USDOJ spokesman Xochitl
   Hinojosa, who refused to reveal the number of complaints regarding the
   excessive use of police force on Occupy protesters.\"If anyone wishes to
   contact us to report an incident, they can find our contact information on
   our web site and we will respond in writing,\" Hinojosa added.(Description
   of Source: Beijing Xinhua in English -- China's official news service for
   English-language audiences (New China News Agency))

   Material in the World News Connection is generally copyrighted by the
   source cited. Permission for use must be obtained from the copyright
   holder. Inquiries regarding use may be directed to NTIS, US Dept. of
   Commerce.
","2011-11-04 11:39:53",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1495374_india-south-asia-xinhua-roundup-concerns-rise-about.html","dialogbot@smtp.stratfor.com","","dialog-list@stratfor.com",""
1497330,"[alpha] Occupy Wall Street (DHS analysis)
","3","2011-10-25 18:04:51",1,"2012-02-29 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1497330_-alpha-occupy-wall-street-dhs-analysis-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com","attach/13/13637_DHS IP Special.pdf"
1500429,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1500429_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1523735,"Re: Hurriyet Daily News ve Stratfor isbirligi
","   Murat Bey, anlasma uzerinde ne gibi degisilikler yapilmasi gerektigini
   dusundugunuzu gorusmeyi ben de isterim. Dilerseniz email ya da telefon
   uzerinden, dilerseniz uygun oldugunuzda Istanbul'da bir araya gelebiliriz.
   Kolayliklar,
   Emre Dogru

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Mehmet Murat Yetkin\" <murat.yetkin@hdn.com.tr>
   To: \"Emre Dogru\" <emre.dogru@stratfor.com>, \"taylan bilgic\"
   <taylanbilgic@gmail.com>
   Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 4:16:19 PM
   Subject: RE: Hurriyet Daily News ve Stratfor isbirligi

   DeA:*erli Emre bey,

   SAP:zleAA*meyi okudum. BU sAP:zleAA*menin HA 1/4rriyet Daily News
   gazetesinin AS:A:+-karlarA:+- doA:*rultusunda iyileAA*tirilmesi
   zorunluA:*u olduA:*u kanaatine vardA:+-m. Bu konuyu da gAP:rA 1/4AA*mek
   isterim.

   Selamlar,

   Murat Yetkin

    

   From: Emre Dogru [mailto:emre.dogru@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:34 AM
   To: Mehmet Murat Yetkin
   Subject: Re: Hurriyet Daily News ve Stratfor isbirligi

    

   Murat Bey, ekte HDN ve Stratfor arasinda imzalanmis olan anlasmayi
   gonderiyorum. Fikirlerinizi beklerim.

    

   Selamlar,

   Emre Dogru

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Mehmet Murat Yetkin\" <murat.yetkin@hdn.com.tr>
   To: \"Emre Dogru\" <emre.dogru@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:21:38 PM
   Subject: RE: Hurriyet Daily News ve Stratfor isbirligi

   Merhaba Emre bey,

   A*ok teAA*ekkA 1/4r ederim.

   A:DEGAA*birliA:*i anlaAA*mamA:+-zA:+-n sizdeki kopyasA:+-nA:+- bana
   gAP:nderebilir misiniz lA 1/4tfen?

   Onun A 1/4zerinde konuAA*mak daha uygun olacaktA:+-r.

   Selamlar,

   Murat Yetkin

    

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Emre Dogru [mailto:emre.dogru@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 12:58 PM
   To: Mehmet Murat Yetkin
   Subject: Hurriyet Daily News ve Stratfor isbirligi

    

   Merhaba Murat Bey,

   Ben Stratfor adli Amerikan uluslararasi politika arastirma sirketinin
   Turkiye ve bolge sorumlusu Emre Dogru. Oncelikle HDN'deki yeni goreviniz
   dolayisiyla sizi tebrik eder ve basarilar dilerim.

   HDN ve Stratfor arasinda David Bey'in calisma doneminde kurulmus bir
   isbirligi anlasmasi mevcut. Ben sahsen HDN'de calisan arkadaslarla cesitli
   vesilelerle gorusuyor ve fikir alisverisinde bulunuyorum. Strafor yonetimi
   ve CEO'su George Friedman bu isbirligine deger veriyor ve surdurulmesini
   arzuluyor. Eger sizin icin de uygun olursa, Istanbul'da oldugunuz bir gun
   hem sizinle tanismak, hem de iki sirket arasindaki isbirliginin icerigini
   ayrintilariyla paylasmak isterim.

   En iyi dileklerimle,
   Emre Dogru

 --

 Emre Dogru

  

 STRATFOR

 Cell:  +90.532.465.7514

 Fixed: +1.512.279.9468

 emre.dogru@stratfor.com

 www.stratfor.com

   --
   --
   Emre Dogru
   STRATFOR  
   Cell: +90.532.465.7514
   Fixed: +1.512.279.9468  
   emre.dogru@stratfor.com  
   www.stratfor.com

   --
   --
   Emre Dogru
   STRATFOR  
   Cell: +90.532.465.7514
   Fixed: +1.512.279.9468  
   emre.dogru@stratfor.com  
   www.stratfor.com
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-29 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1523735_re-hurriyet-daily-news-ve-stratfor-isbirligi-.html","emre.dogru@stratfor.com","","taylanbilgic@gmail.com,murat.yetkin@hdn.com.tr",""
1529211,"Re: Hurriyet Daily News ve Stratfor isbirligi
","","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-29 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1529211_re-hurriyet-daily-news-ve-stratfor-isbirligi-.html","emre.dogru@stratfor.com","","murat.yetkin@hdn.com.tr","attach/122/122089_20110615124352675.pdf"
1537069,"Re: INSIGHT - TURKEY - some notes so far
","   no worries, Bayless. Gulenist guys loved me and I'm sure they will be
   happy to cover my wedding expenses. The only problem is that you won't be
   able to drink alcohol.

   Bayless Parsley wrote:

     that means it's going to be expensive

     Reva Bhalla wrote:

       dude im going to plan their wedding
       ----- Original Message -----
       From: \"Bayless Parsley\" <bayless.parsley@stratfor.com>
       To: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>
       Cc: \"emre dogru\" <emre.dogru@stratfor.com>
       Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 6:43:10 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada
       Central
       Subject: Re: INSIGHT - TURKEY - some notes so far

       oh and i'm sure she is just thrilled the emre pasha is road trippin'
       it with some ethnic looking american girl

       Reva Bhalla wrote:

         haha, the Albanian chick is super cute, btw. Emre Pasha has good
         taste
         ----- Original Message -----
         From: \"Bayless Parsley\" <bayless.parsley@stratfor.com>
         To: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>, \"emre dogru\"
         <emre.dogru@stratfor.com>
         Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 6:39:19 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada
         Central
         Subject: Re: INSIGHT - TURKEY - some notes so far

         one question: can the power of stratfor get emre laid if he ever
         ditches his albanian chick?

         Reva Bhalla wrote:

           a little anecdote i forgot to add. while we were waiting for our
           meeting at the prime minister's building, there was a young guy in
           the waiting room who was waiting for his boss who was meeting with
           Erdogan's advisor. the guy used to work for an MP and is in the
           parliament scene in Ankara. when he found out we were from
           Stratfor, he got really excited and told us about how he and his
           friend sent a letter to the parliament's head of information or
           whatever as a petition for all Turkish MPs to get Stratfor
           subscriptions. Obviously he's a big fan and this is something we
           can pursue as an institution deal. (getting the appropriate
           contact info for this).  At the AKP think tank we visited in
           Ankara today, they also told us clearly 'we know the power of
           Stratfor'. Everyone here wants to influence us one way or another.
           Turkey needs a voice in DC. THey're hoping it's us.
           ----- Original Message -----
           From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>
           To: \"analysts\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
           Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 6:24:34 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada
           Central
           Subject: INSIGHT - TURKEY - some notes so far

           Going to sum up a few meetings so far. i will go into more detail
           later when it's not 230am and not exhausted from traveling 12 hrs
           traveling between istanbul and ankara.  Emre will fill in any
           other details I've missed. We will be meeting next with two
           Turkish energy experts (send questions if you have them -- we need
           good turkey energy sources), CEO of Sabanci group (one of the
           Istanbul giants), TUSKON business association (Gulenist) and then
           on the opposite side of the political spectrum, the head of Dogan
           media, then Isbank (also a bastion for the nationalists and
           Istanbul giants)
           For the first part of my trip, Emre and I have been hanging out
           with hardcore Gulenists. We started at Zaman headquarters (Zaman
           is main Gulenist newspaper and media voice for AKP, Today's Zaman
           is the English-language daily). We met with the Editor in Chief of
           Today's Zaman and the head of Cihan news agency (which runs their
           major media outlets). Cihan is now the most powerful media outlet
           in Turkey. It used to be Hurriyet, dominated by the nationalists,
           but they're under attack (will get to that later). 
           They explicitly represented themselves as part of the 'jamaah', or
           the 'movement', as they like to call it.  The way they represent
           their agenda is that this is about democratization in Turkey,
           human rights, world peace, etc. The guy was actually quoting
           Western liberal philosophers trying to show how much in common
           they have with them in respect for these democratic values, and
           this is what's essential for Turkey's candidacy in the EU. The
           irony, they claim, is that people think because they're Islamist,
           they're fundamentalist and not modern, whereas the authoritarians
           (in their view) ie. the military, are the ones who are seen in the
           West as modern. This is what frustrates them.  So, by promoting
           this peace, love and democracy campaign, they say they are
           fighting for constitutional reform, business and political
           pluralism, civilian control over military, judicial reform, etc.
           That there is no secret agenda.  (my note -- what Emre and I
           noticed is that in all our meetings with Gulenists, they recited
           almost the same lines verbatim. they're very well rehearsed in
           selling this model. At the root of this, however, is power. The
           established elite, ie. the military, Istanbul business giants,
           etc. are being threatened by an Islamist political vehicle fueled
           by the Anatolian small-to-med business class.)  Both of the
           sources talked about how they need to raise an Anatolian business
           class to undermine the Istanbul giants (they essentially
           articulated our own theory, which was cool.).
           We discussed the Ergenekon case a lot, which gave them plenty of
           opportunity to bash the military for being so irresponsible and
           disrespectful to the civilian government. What struck us most is
           how they claim they have allies within the military, people high
           up in rank, who are disaffected with the establishment and are
           WILLING to provide leaks to the Gulenist newspapers and
           intelligence services that support these coup allegations. We
           heard the exact same story the next day at a Gulenist organization
           that we visited. More likely this is an allusion to their
           successful penetration of the military (have sent more detailed
           insight on this previously)
           We also discussed the Gulen schools that are spreading across the
           globe, expanding Turkish influence. Of course these are the
           schools with teh best resources, facilities. Students will learn
           how to speak Turkish, the national anthem, how to be the 'right
           kind of Muslim', etc. In essence, it buys them loyalty. We are
           still working on getting a complete database of Gulenist schools.
            They claim that have more than 2,000 in 200 countries so far.
           Today's Zaman editor in chief also talked about his experience at
           Turkish Daily News, which is now owned by Dogan group (which owns
           Hurriyet and is under attack now by AKP/Gulen). He said at TDN the
           tax evasion was so obvious and went into detail about how they did
           it and how his salary was parceled out to allow them to write off
           most of it.  this story was used by him to claim that they at
           Zaman didn't start this media war with Hurriyet, it was Hurriyet
           that started it because they were involved in all this bad
           business, etc. 
           The next day, Emre and I visited a major Gulenist organization
           that puts together these massive conferences all over the world to
           promote their agenda, raise funds, recruits, etc. Their office is
           in a very expensive part of Istanbul. They've got the best
           facilities, this beautiful  theater system. In short, they've got
           money. Now you have to ask yourself, where is the money coming
           from? the head of the organization that met with us and
           propagandized us kept talking about all these peace love and
           harmony efforts to spread the Gulen ideas and democratize Turkey,
           spread Turkey's influence, etc.  But their funding comes mainly
           from co-opting the Anatolian business class.  Again we heard about
           how they have allies within the military 'brave' enough to issue
           leaks on their coup plots.
           After getting a very long tour of the entire building, top to
           bottom, they sat us down for a Gulen propaganda film in their
           theater. Emre sitting in the middle of the Gulen guy and I. The
           Gulen guy is so overcome by the speech shown in the video by
           Fethullah Gulen, that he starts crying. Meanwhile im trying really
           hard not to laugh.  It was an interesting experience.
           That evening I had dinner with the editor in chief of Hurriyet,
           way on the other side of the political spectrum. He gave his
           version of the tax evasion case, said that Zaman and Gulen started
           the whole thing and that Bulent Kenes (Zaman editor who we met
           with) was part of the problem, he profiteered from that system. In
           short, it's very, very tense.  The night I met him, he had just
           found out that Zaman was suing them for running an article by
           Soner Cagaptay, who Gulenists are trying extremely hard to defame
           (it's very obvious).  This source confirmed what I have heard
           earlier about Gulen penetration of military and how they win the
           support of the Anatolian business class by giving them a lucrative
           place in the supply chain. He gave an example of the Gulen school
           influence -- he met with the Algerian ambassador - trained in a
           Gulen school, spoke fluent Turkish, extremely friendly to the
           Turkish government. A very well-oiled system.
           Today, Emre and I took a road trip to Ankara. We first visited the
           USAK think tank, which was opened by Abdullah Gul (the president)
           in 2009. THey also have a gorgeous office building. The head of
           the think tank started out by telling us what Turkish 'soft power'
           looks like. He said that during the Cold War times, Turkey looked
           at the Arab world in disgust, like they were inferiors. Now Turkey
           is paying attention to its neighborhood, wants to stabilize,e tc
           (the Davutoglu line).  What was most interesting is when he talked
           about how Turkey already has plenty to work from in the MIddle
           East. He said, Syrians, Egyptians, Iraqis, even Iranians --
           they're ALL TURKS. He says they look like Turks, they have TUrkish
           relatives from Ottoman history, they want to be like Turks, they
           love Turkish lifestyle, etc etc. He said that there is 'no such
           thing as an Arab' or Arab nationalism under Nasser. They're all
           Turks and Egypt is not a power to be taken seriously.  (if any
           Arab were in that room, their head would have probably
           exploded). they're nothing. Israel is also nothing compared to
           Turkish economic, regional, political, population power.   He went
           on to explain how Turkey can solve everyone's problems, by opening
           borders, removing visa restrictions and improving trade with
           Egypt, Syria, Iran, etc. A key part of this strategy is also to
           benefit the AKP's strategy of raising its own business class ---
           the Turkish merchants who benefit from increased trade in the
           Mideast are the Antaolian businessmen, and AKP is making sure of
           that. 
           This AKP think tank is in all the big Turkish delegations. He said
           that in their last trip to Syria, Bashar tells them he wants to
           open the border and wants to democratize (on the latter, yeah
           freakin right). He also claims that after their meetings, the
           members of the Syrian business council were practically begging
           them to stay because they said once the Turks in that delegation
           left, everything would go back to the same. Overall, we got the
           impression from several of these meetings that Turkey is extremely
           focused on the Syria track and increasingly more so on the
           Egyptian track. They expect and claim these countries welcome the
           Turks with open arms.  They also couldn't stop talkinga bout how
           Turkish television programs over satellite are spreading os much
           influence throughout the mideast and shows them how to be modern
           Turks. Saudi Arabia apparently has banned or is trying to ban
           these shows. I myself have seen how Turkish soap operas are
           extremely popular in the mideast.
           He confirmed our analysis that Russia has no intention of seeing
           through a Turkey-Armenia deal - it wouldn't make any sense. He
           says the AKP leadership was so naive to think that the talks would
           go anywhere. Now it's time to turn back to Azerbaijan and Georgia
           and fix things with them. AFter all, he says, Azerbaijan doesn't
           want to become another dependent of Russia's. 
           One other interesting thing he said about the Russian factor in
           those Armenia talks was that Turkey really expected the US to get
           more involved. He said Russia of course was an obstacle, we knew
           that. But, the US could have made concessions to Russia to allow
           this Armenia deal through. In other words, they expected the US to
           be part of a grand bargain in which the US would recognize that
           Turkey-Armenia relationship would bring all kinds of benefits, ie.
           strengthen an ally in the Caucasus, take care of the genocide
           issue, etc.  Turkey also expected US to pay a price to Russia for
           this project. Here is where there appears to be a
           misunderstanding, especially since this Armenia-Turkey deal is
           likely very low on US priorities when it comes to how to bargain
           with Russia. 
           We then met Erdogan's chief advisor at the prime minister's
           building.  This guy is also a Gulenist, but not openly so. The
           Hurriyet people say he is and Emre and i noticed the way he was
           talking on the phone and using certain phrases marked him as one.
           We got a lot of the Davutoglu diplomatic line from him (he's a
           very smooth and articulate guy, as Kamran knows). He said that
           there needs to be more time in the Iran negotiations and that
           things only got really serious in the past 6-7 months. US can't
           expect all this to happen overnight. He claims taht prior to the
           Iranian Revolution anniversary in February, that Iran actually
           agreed to the Turkey fuel swap deal. When they took the deal to
           the US, he says the US was totally unprepared then came back and
           said they can't do it. Turkey was pissed.  They feel that this, in
           addition to the Armenia issue and everything else, just goes to
           show how the Obama administration doesn't have strong political
           leadership (Bush at least fought the armenia resolution) and that
           the US doesn't understand or appreciate Turkey's role in the
           region. They feel betrayed, to use his words. He says it's
           hypocritical for US to get mad if Turkey talks to Russia when
           everyone applauds US and Russia negotiating. He says the reason
           Turkey is so active in the east is because they're actually
           receptive to them there (hint, hint - go tell your government to
           wake up and appreciate us).  He, like the guy at the AKP Usak
           think tank, talked about how Turkey needs the US as a partner in
           this region. US just needs to recognize it. 

 --
 Emre Dogru

 STRATFOR
 +1.512.279.9468
 emre.dogru@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2010-03-11 08:39:14",1,"2012-03-03 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1537069_re-insight-turkey-some-notes-so-far-.html","emre.dogru@stratfor.com","","bhalla@stratfor.com,bayless.parsley@stratfor.com",""
1549484,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1549484_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1549513,"Re: hacker questions
","   What would cause Anonymous or LulzSec to change their M.O.?  Wasn't
   Lulzsec an outgrowth, and thus a change in MO, from Anonymous?

   Top hackers only work for the NSA or the Chinese?
   On 6/28/11 5:14 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     they took the cia's website down and it didn't matter, intranet was
     still up, it's just the webpage. cyber attacks really only matter in two
     cases: one: you steal shit. two: you render critical networks useless.

     while lulzsec and anon COULD theoretically do number 2, it doesn't mean
     they ever will because it would take someone convincing a horde of nerds
     that ddos-ing a telecom system is a good idea. The most harm they can
     realistically do is by exposing secure networks' flaws and stealing
     information (number 1). For this you don't need a million people, just a
     few very good ones with gigantic computers. It's really not in the m.o.
     of either of them to do anything so serious. While top hackers are
     dangerous, they're not going to be exposing themselves as part of any
     group but most likely working either for the NSA or the Chinese.

     On 6/28/11 5:05 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

       Even if they did take down the CIA's website, why would it matter? or
       in what cases would it matter?

       On 6/28/11 4:36 PM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

         Mainly the targets they're choosing: everything from government
         websites in Brazil, Chile, Peru to the Arizona PD and the freakin'
         CIA (although whether they actually brought down the CIA site or not
         isn't not confirmed). This is a considerable step-up from harassing
         some Scientologists.
         This wouldn't seem to be, by any means, \"serious\" hacking (mainly
         relying on DDOS and everything else Marc mentioned), but the fact
         that they can disrupt websites of that caliber, even for a few
         hours, is starting to attract media attention and it would mayby be
         prudent to mention something about it.

         Again, this wouldn't be a focus on Lulz-sec or Anonymous or whatever
         specifically, but rather the nature of this sort of impromptu
         cyber-harassing that can be a pain. 

         On 6/28/11 4:22 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

           Renato- what makes it significant enough for us to cover?

           Marc- what makes LulzSec's capacity so remarkalble?

             the thing with anon and lulzec is that they do things for,
             drumroll, the \"lulz\" (in normal speech, for the fun of it).
             While they have pretty remarkable hacking capacity, they use it
             mostly to \"prank\" people they don't like. From teh Westboro
             Baptist Church to the CIA, most of the attacks involve either
             DDOS or changing some silly logo on a web page. The most harm
             they do is actually to corporations (stealing video game and
             porn passwords).

             Especially in the case of Anon, they do have some very talented
             hackers, but their strength comes from numbers. Basically they
             recruit amateur 4chan neckbeards sitting at their parent's house
             who think it'd be funny to take someone's website down and
             convince them to run a pre-written script that will saturate its
             servers. The problem with numbers is that it's hard to find a
             common cause that rallies enough people . For your average
             31-year old dork eating Frito's in the basement, they'll sign up
             for porn and video game attacks (see above). Coordinating
             something targeted like intelligence theft that can get you a
             one-way ticket to Bubba's bunk in jail is very hard.

             On 6/28/11 1:23 PM, Renato Whitaker wrote:

               Do we plan to address any of the recent hacker phenomenons
               like the \"Anon\" and \"lulzsec\" attempts on gov. websites? I
               mean, \"Anonymous\" is more of an idea than an actual group, but
               this could be considered a sort of electronic \"lone-wolf\", no?

               On a somewhat unrelated note, I looked up \"Lulz\" on Stratfor
               and came up with this typo: \"Both Chavez and Correa were in
               Manaos, Brazil, to meet with Brazilian President Lulz Inacio
               \"Lula\" da Silva.\"
               (http://www.stratfor.com/venezuela_chavez_says_banco_del_sur_open_november).

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 ADP

           --

           Sean Noonan

           Tactical Analyst

           Office: +1 512-279-9479

           Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

           Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

           www.stratfor.com

       --

       Sean Noonan

       Tactical Analyst

       Office: +1 512-279-9479

       Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

       Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

       www.stratfor.com

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 ADP

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2011-06-29 01:33:34",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1549513_re-hacker-questions-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1553143,"Re: [CT] Fwd: [OS] US/CT-16 Suspected 'Anonymous' Hackers Arrested
 in Nationwide Sweep
","These assholes should get the death sentence, along with their hero Julian =
Assange.

---- Original Message -----
From: Reginald Thompson &lt;reginald.thompson@stratfor.com&gt;
To: CT AOR &lt;ct@stratfor.com&gt;
Sent: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 18:48:06 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [CT] Fwd: [OS] US/CT-16 Suspected 'Anonymous' Hackers Arrested in =
Nationwide Sweep
16 Suspected 'Anonymous' Hackers Arrested in Nationwide Sweep=20
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/19/exclusive-fbi-search-warrants-nat=
ionwide-hunt-anonymous/=20
7.19.11=20
Sixteen suspected members of \"Anonymous\" were arrested this morning in stat=
es across the country, from California to New York, in a federal raid on th=
e notorious hacking group.=20
The arrests Tuesday, first reported by FoxNews.com, are part of an ongoing =
investigation into Anonymous, which has claimed responsibility for numerous=
 cyberattacks against a variety of websites, including Visa and Mastercard.=
=20
The Department of Justice, in announcing the arrests and more than 35 searc=
h warrants in the case, said the case stemmed from an alleged cybertattack =
on the website PayPal over its action against controversial group WikiLeaks=
, one of the inspirations for the hacker group Anonymous.=20
Fourteen of the arrests were identified in the same indictment out of Calif=
ornia, while two separate criminal complaints filed out of courts in Newark=
, N.J., and Tampa, Fla., name the two other alleged hackers. All are believ=
ed to have been involved in carrying out nationwide coordinated distributed=
 denial of service (DDoS) attacks on multiple high-profile, billion-dollar =
companies.=20
\"In retribution for PayPal=E2=80=99s termination of WikiLeaks=E2=80=99 dona=
tion account, a group calling itself Anonymous coordinated and executed dis=
tributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks against PayPal=E2=80=99s computer=
 servers using an open source computer program the group makes available fo=
r free download on the Internet,\" the Justice Department said in a news rel=
ease.=20
The department identified the suspects in the California indictment as Chri=
stopher Wayne Cooper, 23, aka =E2=80=9CAnthrophobic;=E2=80=9D Joshua John C=
ovelli, 26, aka =E2=80=9CAbsolem=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9CToxic;=E2=80=9D Keit=
h Wilson Downey, 26; Mercedes Renee Haefer, 20, aka =E2=80=9CNo=E2=80=9D an=
d =E2=80=9CMMMM;=E2=80=9D Donald Husband, 29, aka =E2=80=9CAnanon;=E2=80=9D=
 Vincent Charles Kershaw, 27, aka =E2=80=9CTrivette,=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9CTriv=
=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9CReaper;=E2=80=9D Ethan Miles, 33; James C. Murphy, 3=
6; Drew Alan Phillips, 26, aka =E2=80=9CDrew010;=E2=80=9D Jeffrey Puglisi, =
28, aka =E2=80=9CJeffer,=E2=80=9D =E2=80=9CJefferp=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9CJi=
;=E2=80=9D Daniel Sullivan, 22; Tracy Ann Valenzuela, 42; and Christopher Q=
uang Vo, 22. One individual=E2=80=99s name has been withheld by the court.=
=20
They are charged with various counts of conspiracy and intentional damage t=
o a protected computer, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in pri=
son and a fine of up to $250,000. Each count of conspiracy carries a maximu=
m penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.=20
Also Tuesday, Scott Matthew Arciszewski, 21, was arrested in Florida on cha=
rges of intentional damage to a protected computer for allegedly accessing =
without authorization the Tampa Bay InfraGard website and uploaded three fi=
les.=20
And Lance Moore, 21, of Las Cruces, N.M., was arrested on the New Jersey in=
dictment, which accuses him of stealing confidential business information s=
tored on AT&T=E2=80=99s servers and posting it on a file-sharing site. He i=
s charged with one count of accessing a protected computer without authoriz=
ation.=20
Some of the arrests were out of the San Francisco field office, sources sai=
d. Earlier in the day, the FBI executed search warrants at the New York hom=
es -- two in Long Island, N.Y., and one in Brooklyn, N.Y. -- of three suspe=
cted members of Anonymous, FoxNews.com reported.=20
More than 10 FBI agents arrived at the Baldwin, N.Y., home of Giordani Jord=
an with a search warrant for computers and computer-related accessories, re=
moving at least one laptop from the premises.=20
The Anonymous group is a loose collection of cybersavvy activists inspired =
by WikiLeaks and its flamboyant head Julian Assange to fight for \"Internet =
freedom\" -- along the way defacing websites, shutting down servers, and scr=
awling messages across screens web-wide.=20
The Anonymous vigilante group recently turned its efforts to the Arizona po=
lice department, posting personal information of law officers and hacking a=
nd defacing websites in response, the group claims, to the state's controve=
rsial SB1070 immigration law.=20
While Anonymous is largely a politically motivated organization, splinter g=
roup LulzSec -- which dominated headlines in the spring for a similar strea=
k of cyberattacks -- was largely in it for the thrills.=20
The metropolitan police in London arrested the first alleged member of the =
LulzSec group on June 20, a 19-year-old teen named Ryan Cleary. Subsequent =
sweeps through Italy and Switzerland in early July led to the arrests of 15=
 more people -- all between the ages of 15 and 28 years old.=20
The two groups are responsible for a broad spate of digital break-ins targe=
ting governments and large corporations, including Japanese technology gian=
t Sony, the U.S. Senate, telecommunications giant AT&T, Fox.com, and other =
government and private entities.=20
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/19/exclusive-fbi-search-w=
arrants-nationwide-hunt-anonymous/#ixzz1Sb8yzQ90=20
-----------------=20
Reginald Thompson=20
Cell: (011) 504 8990-7741=20
OSINT=20
Stratfor=20
","2011-07-20 04:47:57",1,"2012-02-28 19:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1553143_re-ct-fwd-os-us-ct-16-suspected-anonymous-hackers-arrested.html","christopher.ohara@stratfor.com","mailto:ct@stratfor.com","ct@stratfor.com",""
1571365,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
","   this dude really gives the impression that Moscow calls the shots in Kiev

   so basically, Med gets pissed b/c Timo is blowing Putin and not him, so he
   whines to Putin and says drop the B and get behind Yanu like me. Putin
   says fine, Yanu gets excited and oversteps his boundaries, and now Putin
   is like fix this shit Med and Med is like okay, but we dont know what Med
   is actually gonna do to slap Yanu around

   so what's the couterargument to this? Does Russia really have this much
   influence over the situation?  this is something we need to address in
   ukraine reassessment

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111

   CODE: UA111
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   HANDLER: Lauren

    

   Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
   But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
   this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
   begin with.

    

   You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
   power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
   Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
   solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
   Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
   easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
   her in trouble and arrested.

    

   But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
   respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
   made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
   deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
   Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
   the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
   military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
   it had been pushing for.

    

   So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
   the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
   to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
   demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.

    

   Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
   to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
   against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
   will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-14 20:55:23",1,"2012-02-28 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1571365_re-alpha-insight-ukraine-moscow-kiev-spat-ua111-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1576512,"US/CT- Occupy Wall Street Background
","   *these were sent out before, but bringing them up again
   Occupy Wall Street: FAQ
   Nathan Schneider
   September 29, 2011 
   http://www.thenation.com/article/163719/occupy-wall-street-faq

   Q: I hear that Adbusters organized Occupy Wall Street? Or Anonymous? Or US
   Day of Rage? Just who put this together anyway?

   A: All of the above, and more. Adbusters made the initial call in
   mid-July, and also produced a very sexy poster with a ballerina posed atop
   the Charging Bull statue and riot police in the background. US Day of
   Rage, the mainly internet-based creation of IT strategist Alexa O'Brien,
   got involved too and did a lot of the early legwork and tweeting.
   Anonymous-in its various and multiform visages-joined in late August. On
   the ground in New York, though, most of the planning was done by people
   involved in the NYC General Assembly, a collection of activists, artists
   and students first convened by folks who had been involved in New Yorkers
   Against Budget Cuts. That coalition of students and union workers had just
   finished a three-week occupation near City Hall called Bloombergville
   protesting the mayor's plans for budget cuts and layoffs. They had learned
   from the experience and were itching to do it again, this time with the
   hope of having a bigger impact. But no one person or group is running the
   Wall Street occupation entirely.
   Media
   [ Click for More ]

       Activist at Occupy Wall Street

   [Click to View]
   Video: Voices From Liberty Square
   We Recommend
   Watch the Livestream From Occupy Wall Street (Activism, Politics)

   Watch a live video feed from Occupy Wall Street.
   The Nation
   About the Author
   Nathan Schneider
   Nathan Schneider is an editor for the blogs Waging Nonviolence and Killing
   the Buddha, an online magazine of...
   Also by The Author
   From Occupy Wall Street to Occupy Everywhere (Activism)

   In three months, an idea and a hashtag became a worldwide movement. Here's
   how they did it.
   Nathan Schneider
   12 comments
   Occupation Nation Goes to Washington (Occupy Wall Street, Activism,
   Economy, Politics)

   The Wall Street protesters have created the template for an ambitious new
   occupation in the nation's capital.
   Nathan Schneider
   Related Topics
   Entertainment Human Interest Natural Disaster Religion Social Issues
   Technology War

   So nobody is in charge? How do decisions get made?

   The General Assembly has become the de facto decision-making body for the
   occupation at Liberty Plaza, just a few blocks north of Wall Street. (That
   was Zuccotti Park's name before 2006, when the space was rebuilt by
   Brookfield Properties and renamed after its chairman, John Zuccotti.) Get
   ready for jargon: the General Assembly is a horizontal, autonomous,
   leaderless, modified-consensus-based system with roots in anarchist
   thought, and it's akin to the assemblies that have been driving recent
   social movements around the world, in places like Argentina, Egypt's
   Tahrir Square, Madrid's Puerta del Sol and so on. Working toward consensus
   is really hard, frustrating and slow. But the occupiers are taking their
   time. When they finally get to consensus on some issue, often after days
   and days of trying, the feeling is quite incredible. A mighty cheer fills
   the plaza. It's hard to describe the experience of being among hundreds of
   passionate, rebellious, creative people who are all in agreement about
   something.

   Fortunately, though, they don't need to come to consensus about
   everything. Working alongside the General Assembly are an ever-growing
   number of committees and working groups-from Food and Media to Direct
   Action and Sanitation. Anyone is welcome to join one, and they each do
   their own thing, working in tacit coordination with the General Assembly
   as a whole. In the end, the hope is that every individual is empowered to
   make decisions and act as her or himself, for the good of the group.

   What are the demands of the protesters?

   Ugh-the zillion-dollar question. Again, the original Adbusters call asked,
   \"What is our one demand?\" Technically, there isn't one yet. In the weeks
   leading up to September 17, the NYC General Assembly seemed to be veering
   away from the language of \"demands\" in the first place, largely because
   government institutions are already so shot through with corporate money
   that making specific demands would be pointless until the movement grew
   stronger politically. Instead, to begin with, they opted to make their
   demand the occupation itself-and the direct democracy taking place
   there-which in turn may or may not come up with some specific demand. When
   you think about it, this act is actually a pretty powerful statement
   against the corruption that Wall Street has come to represent. But since
   thinking is often too much to ask of the American mass media, the question
   of demands has turned into a massive PR challenge.

   The General Assembly is currently in the midst of determining how it will
   come to consensus about unifying demands. It's a really messy and
   interesting discussion. But don't hold your breath.

   Everyone in the plaza comes with their own way of thinking about what
   they'd like to see happen, of course. Along the north end of the plaza,
   there's a collage of hundreds of cardboard signs people have made with
   slogans and demands on them. Bystanders stop and look at them, transfixed,
   all day long. The messages are all over the place, to be sure, but there's
   also a certain coherence to them. That old standby, \"People Before
   Profits,\" seems to capture the gist fairly well. But also under discussion
   are a variety of other issues, ranging from ending the death penalty, to
   dismantling the military-industrial complex, to affordable healthcare, to
   more welcoming immigration policies. And more. It can be confusing, but
   then again these issues are all at some level interconnected.

   Some news reports have been painting the protesters as unfocused, or
   worse, as hopelessly confused and uninformed. Is there any truth to that?

   Sure. In a world as complex as ours, we're all uninformed about most
   things, even if we know about a few. I remember a police officer remarking
   of the protesters on the first or second day, \"They think they know
   everything!\" That's how young people generally are. But in this case,
   noticing the over-concentration of wealth around Wall Street and its
   outsized influence in politics does not require a detailed grasp of what a
   hedge fund does or the current selling price of Apple stock. One thing
   that distinguishes these protesters is precisely their hope that a better
   world is possible. I might add that, for many Americans, such nonviolent
   direct action is the only chance of having a political voice, and it
   deserves to be taken seriously by those of us in the press.

   How many people have responded to the Adbusters call? How large is the
   group? And how large has it ever been?

   The original Adbusters call envisioned 20,000 people flooding the
   Financial District on September 17. A tenth of that probably ended up
   being there that day. Despite a massive Anonymous-powered online social
   media blitz, lots of people simply didn't know about it, and traditional
   progressive organizations like labor unions and peace groups were
   uncomfortable signing on to so amorphous an action. Over the course of a
   difficult first week, with arrests happening just about every day, new
   faces kept coming, as others filtered out to take a break. The media
   coverage after last weekend's mass arrests and alleged police brutality
   has brought many more. Now, during the day and into the night, one finds
   500 or more people in the plaza, and maybe half that sleeping over. At any
   given time, several thousand people around the world are watching the
   occupation's 24/7 livestream online.

   Rather than a mass movement from the outset, this occupation has ended up
   depending on a relatively small number of highly determined, courageous
   young activists willing to sleep outside and confront police intimidation.
   But that is changing. As word spreads about it, the crowd has been getting
   older, more diverse. Already, though, this tactic of a somewhat rowdy
   occupation has garnered influence far greater than a traditional march
   would. After all, 20,000 marched on Wall Street on May 12-protesting bank
   bailouts and budget cuts for state employees-and who remembers that?

   What would a \"win\" look like for the occupation?

   Again, that depends on whom you ask. As September 17 approached, the NYC
   General Assembly really saw its goal, again, not so much as to pass some
   piece of legislation or start a revolution as to build a new kind of
   movement. It wanted to foment similar, like-minded assemblies around the
   city and around the world, which would be a new basis for political
   organizing in this country, against the overwhelming influence of
   corporate money. That is starting to happen, as similar occupations are
   cropping up in dozens of other cities. Another big occupation has been in
   the making for months, slated to begin on October 6 at Freedom Plaza in
   Washington, DC, and the organizers of that have been visiting Liberty
   Plaza on and off, learning all they can from its successes and mistakes.

   I've heard some people saying, when Liberty Plaza was swamped with TV news
   cameras, \"We've already won!\" Others think they've hardly begun. Both, in
   some sense, are true.

   Are there cops all over the square? How bad has the police brutality been?
   If I came there, what are the risks?

   The police presence is nonstop, and there have been some very scary
   encounters with them-which also gave occasion for tremendous acts of
   courage by protesters. The worst incident was last Saturday, of course,
   but there has been very little trouble since then. A large contingent of
   protesters has no intention of getting arrested, and almost nobody is
   interested in taking pointless risks or instigating violence against
   people or property. The more that ordinary people join the cause-together
   with celebrity visitors like Susan Sarandon, Cornel West and Michael
   Moore-the less likely the police will probably be to try to suppress it.
   As one sign along Broadway says, \"Safety in Numbers! Join Us!\"

   Nonetheless, challenging the powers that be-and doing so impolitely,
   outside the bounds of a permit-is never going to be 100 percent safe. To
   the extent that this movement is effective, it will also carry risks. If
   you take part, it's not a bad idea to keep the National Lawyers Guild's
   phone number written on your arm, just in case.

   If I can't come to Wall Street, what else can I do?

   A lot of people are already taking part in important ways from afar-this
   is the magic of decentralization. Online, you can watch the livestream,
   make donations, retweet on Twitter and encourage your friends to get
   interested. People with relevant skills have been volunteering to help
   maintain the movement's websites and edit video-coordinating through IRC
   chat rooms and other social media. Soon, the formal discussions about
   demands will be happening online as well as in the plaza. Offline, you can
   join the numerous similar occupations that are starting up around the
   country or start your own.

   Finally, you can always take the advice that has become one of the several
   mantras of the movement, expressed this way by one woman at Tuesday
   night's General Assembly meeting: \"Occupy your own heart,\" she said, \"not
   with fear but with love.\"
   Nathan Schneider
   September 29, 2011  

   How Occupy Wall Street has Evolved

   http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/06/technology/occupy_wall_street/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

   NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- When Occupy Wall Street began on September 17, the
   protest consisted of a few hundred people speaking out about corporate
   greed and inequality. They practiced tai chi in a park near Wall Street,
   painted homemade signs and discussed what their demands should be.

   Now, almost three weeks later, the once-haphazard movement is growing
   larger and more coordinated. Hundreds of people have been arrested. Large
   labor unions, including the AFL-CIO and SEIU, have joined in. When new
   arrivals turn out, volunteers swiftly equip them with donated sleeping
   bags and food. Dozens of cities nationwide have launched their own
   \"occupy\" protests in solidarity.

   Like the \"Arab Spring\" uprisings that inspired its tactics, Occupy Wall
   Street is evolving.

   From the beginning, organizers -- including activist magazine Adbusters,
   which hatched the idea and put out a call for participants back in July --
   have said they hope protesters will occupy Manhattan's Financial District
   for two months. On Day 1, no one knew what that would look like. Fast
   forward to Day 19, and Zuccotti Park is loaded with makeshift camps and
   organized \"stations\": medical, food, legal, media, security and more.

   Food and blankets have come in from donors all over the nation, said Matt
   Ingram, who was volunteering at the \"Comfort\" station on Wednesday.

   \"It's incredible to see the outpouring of support from people who can't be
   here,\" said Ingram, 28. \"It reminds you that there's still humanity, and
   that people are inherently good.\"
   Meet the Occupy Wall Street protesters

   The support from labor unions, which began signing on in late September,
   has brought hundreds more to the scene. Representatives from the groups
   have garnered attention by sending press releases about the protest.

   \"It brings us more people and more attention,\" said one twenty-something
   man who declined to give his name. \"I don't think that their cause is the
   same as most people here. But we're all angry about something, so I guess
   it's OK.\"

   The crowd and atmosphere shift depending on the day of the week. It's
   tough to leave your day job for two months straight, and so the number of
   protesters dwindles on weekdays, when those present tend to be college
   students, the unemployed and retired people. Weekends ramp back up again,
   with a larger and more diverse crowd turning out.

   Day-by day highlights: Before the protest began on Saturday, Sept. 17, the
   New York Police Department closed off Wall Street and barricaded the
   iconic bull on Broadway. A few hundred protesters gathered around the bull
   and in nearby Zuccotti Park, with the crowd growing to about 500 by the
   evening.

   On Day 3, a misty Monday, the number of protesters had fallen to about 125
   people. But the following weekend brought hundreds more people -- and the
   first spate of arrests.

   The NYPD closed Broadway that Saturday -- Day 8 of the demonstration --
   and protesters marched down the avenue. Photographer Daniel Fitzsimmons
   said that day that \"a protestor dropped to his knees in front of the Chase
   Bank on Wall Street, saying the bank took his parents' house. He was later
   arrested.\"

   Around Day 12, labor unions began signing on to show their support.

   On Day 15, this past Saturday, the tone changed sharply. The protesters
   extended the rally to Brooklyn Bridge, where hundreds were arrested and
   later released with tickets for blocking the roadway.

   \"Over 700 summonses and desk appearance tickets have been issued in
   connection with the demonstration on the Brooklyn Bridge ... after
   multiple warnings by police were given to protesters to stay on the
   pedestrian walkway,\" said NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne.

   Browne said authorities had warned protesters they would be arrested.
   Bridge traffic heading to Brooklyn from Manhattan was shut down for
   several hours.

   A few hundred people remained at Zuccotti Park on Day 19, Oct. 5,
   preparing for a late-afternoon march from Foley Square to the Financial
   District.

   Meanwhile, an Occupy Philadelphia is slated to launch Thursday, joining
   protests in Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Denver and Chicago, among
   other cities.

   The protest has drawn some criticism for its lack of concrete goals. But
   the fact that Occupy Wall Street is still going strong 19 days later means
   it's done what it set out to do: Draw focus to the concerns -- and anger
   -- many Americans have about the country's growing economic gap, plant the
   seed of an organized voice, and let the protest evolve naturally.

   \"We're showing that 'we the people' really are here, present, from all
   walks of life,\" said Tammy Bick, 49, an unemployed former medical
   secretary. \"It's a meeting of the minds and a voicing of our issues. That
   alone makes it the best single experience of my life.\" To top of page
   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-16 16:28:28",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1576512_us-ct-occupy-wall-street-background-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1576594,"US/CT- Meet the Guy Who Snitched on Occupy Wall Street to the FBI
 and NYPD
","   email archive is available here:
   http://biggovernment.com/thomasryan/2011/10/14/the-email-archive-of-the-occupywallstreet-movement-anarchists-socialists-jihadists-unions-democrats/

   Meet the Guy Who Snitched on Occupy Wall Street to the FBI and NYPD
   By Adrian Chen
   Oct 15, 2011 4:47 PM
   http://gawker.com/5850054/meet-the-guy-who-snitched-on-occupy-wall-street-to-the-fbi-and-nypd

   The Occupy Wall Street protests have been going on for a month. And it
   seems the FBI and NYPD have had help tracking protesters' moves thanks to
   a conservative computer security expert who gained access to one of the
   group's internal mailing lists, and then handed over information on the
   group's plans to authorities and corporations targeted by protesters.

   Since the Occupy Wall Street protest began on September 17, New York
   security consultant Thomas Ryan has been waging a campaign to infiltrate
   and discredit the movement. Ryan says he's done contract work for the U.S.
   Army and he brags on his blog that he leads \"a team called Black Cell, a
   team of the most-highly trained and capable physical, threat and cyber
   security professionals in the world.\" But over the past few weeks, he and
   his computer security buddies have been spending time covertly attending
   Occupy Wall Street meetings, monitoring organizers' social media accounts,
   and hanging out with protesters in Lower Manhattan.

   Full size
   As part of their intelligence-gathering operation, the group gained access
   to a listserv used by Occupy Wall Street organizers called
   September17discuss. On September17discuss, organizers hash out tactics and
   plan events, conduct post-mortems of media appearances, and trade the
   latest protest gossip. On Friday, Ryan leaked thousands of
   September17discuss emails to conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart, who is
   now using them to try to smear Occupy Wall Street as an anarchist
   conspiracy to disrupt global markets.

   What may much more alarming to Occupy Wall Street organizers is that while
   Ryan was monitoring September17discuss, he was forwarding interesting
   email threads to contacts at the NYPD and FBI, including special agent
   Jordan T. Loyd, a member of the FBI's New York-based cyber security team.

   Meet the Guy Who Snitched on Occupy Wall Street to the FBI and NYPDOn
   September 18th, the day after the protest's start, Ryan forwarded an email
   exchange between Occupy Wall Street organizers to Loyd. The email exchange
   is harmless: Organizers discuss how they need to increase union
   participation in the protest. \"We need more outreach to workers. The best
   way to do that is by showing solidarity with them,\" writes organizer
   Jackie DiSalvo in the thread. She then lists a group of potential unions
   to work with.

   Another organizer named Conor responds: \"+1,000,000 to Jackie's proposal
   on working people/union struggles outreach and solidarity. Also, why not
   invite people to protest Troy Davis's execution date at Liberty Plaza this
   Monday?\"

   Five minutes after Conor sent his email, Ryan forwarded the thread-with no
   additional comment-to Loyd's FBI email address. \"Thanks!\" Loyd responded.
   He cc'd his colleague named Ilhwan Yum, a fellow cybersecurity expert at
   the agency, on the reply.

   Meet the Guy Who Snitched on Occupy Wall Street to the FBI and NYPDOn
   September 26th, Ryan forwarded another email thread to Agent Loyd. But
   this time he clued in the NYPD as well, sending the email to Dennis
   Dragos, a detective with the NYPD Computer Crimes Squad.

   The NYPD might have been very grateful he did so, since it involved a
   proposed demonstration outside NYPD headquarters at 1 Police Plaza. In the
   thread, organizers debated whether to crash an upcoming press conference
   planned by marijuana advocates to celebrate NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly
   ordering officers to halt arrests over possession of small amounts of
   marijuana.

   \"Should we bring some folks from Liberty Plaza to chant \"SHAME\" for the
   NYPD's recent brutalities on Thursday night for the Troy Davis and
   Saturday for the Occupy Wall Street march?\" asked one person in the email
   thread. (That past Saturday, the video of NYPD officer Anthony Bologna
   pepper-spraying a protester had gone viral.) Ryan promptly forwarded the
   email thread to Loyd at the FBI and Dragos at the NYPD.

   Interestingly, it was Ryan who revealed himself as a snitch. We learned of
   these emails from the archive Ryan leaked yesterday in the hopes of
   undermining the Occupy Wall Street movement. In assembling the archive of
   September17discuss emails, it appears he accidentally included some of his
   own forwarded emails indicating he was ratting out organizers.

   \"I don't know, I just put everything I had into one big package,\" Ryan
   said when asked how the emails ended up in the file posted to Andrew
   Breitbart's blog. Some security expert.

   Meet the Guy Who Snitched on Occupy Wall Street to the FBI and NYPDBut
   Ryan didn't just tip off the authorities. He was also giving information
   to companies as well. When protesters discussed demonstrating in front of
   morning shows like Today and Good Morning America, Ryan quickly forwarded
   the thread to Mark Farrell, the chief security officer at Comcast, the
   parent company of NBC Universal.

   Ryan wrote:

       Since you are the CSO, I am not sure of your role in NBC since COMCAST
   owns them.
       There is a huge protest in New York call \"Occupy Wall Street\". Here is
   an email of stunts that they will try to pull on the TODAY show.

       We have been heavily monitoring Occupy Wall Street, and Anonymous.

   \"Thanks Tom,\" Farrell responded. \"I'll pass this to my counterpart at
   NBCU.\"

   Did the FBI and/or NYPD ask him to monitor Occupy Wall Street? Was he just
   forwarding the emails on out of the goodness of his heart? In a phone
   interview with us, Ryan denied being an informant. \"I do not work with the
   FBI,\" he said.

   Ryan said he knows Loyd through their mutual involvement in the Open Web
   Application Security Project, a non-profit computer security group of
   which Ryan is a board member. Ryan said he sent the emails to Loyd
   unsolicited simply because \"everyone's curious\" about Occupy Wall Street,
   and he had a ground-eye view. \"Jordan never asked me for anything.\"

   Was he sending every email he got to the authorities? Ryan said he
   couldn't remember how many he'd passed on to the FBI or NYPD, or other
   third parties. Later he said that he only forwarded the two emails we
   noticed, detailed above.

   Meet the Guy Who Snitched on Occupy Wall Street to the FBI and NYPDBut
   even if he'd been sending them on regularly, they were probably of limited
   use to the authorities. Most of the real organizing at Occupy Wall Street
   happens face-to-face, according to David Graeber, who was one of the
   earliest organizers. \"We did some practical work on [the email list] at
   first-I think that's where I first proposed the \"we are the 99%\" motto-but
   mainly it's just an expressive forum,\" he wrote in an email. \"No one would
   seriously discuss a plan to do something covert or dangerous on such a
   list.\"

   But regardless of how many emails Ryan sent-or whether Loyd ever asked
   Ryan to spy on Occupy Wall Street-Loyd was almost certainly interested in
   the emails he received. Loyd has helped hunt down members of the
   hacktivist collective Anonymous, and he and his colleagues in the FBI's
   cyber security squad have been monitoring their involvement in Occupy Wall
   Street.

   Meet the Guy Who Snitched on Occupy Wall Street to the FBI and NYPDAt a
   New York cyber security conference one day before the protest began, Loyd
   cited Occupy Wall Street as an example of a \"newly emerging threat to U.S.
   information systems.\" (In the lead-up to Occupy Wall Street, Anonymous had
   issued threats against the New York Stock Exchange.) He told the assembled
   crowd the FBI has been \"monitoring the event on cyberspace and are
   preparing to meet it with physical security,\" according to a New York
   Institute of Technology press release.

   We contacted Loyd to ask about his relationship with Ryan and if any of
   the information Ryan passed along was of any use to the agency. He
   declined to answer questions and referred us to the FBI's press office.
   We'll post an update if we hear back from them.

   We asked Ryan again this morning about how closely he was working with the
   authorities. Again, he claimed it was only these two emails, which is
   unlikely given he forwarded them to the FBI and NYPD without providing any
   context or explaining where he'd gotten them.

   And he detailed his rationale for assisting the NYPD:

       My respect for FDNY & NYPD stems from them risking their lives to save
   mine when my house was on fire in sunset park when I was 8 yrs old. Also,
   for them risking their lives and saving many family and friends during
   9/11.

       Don't you find it Ironic that out of all the NYPD involved with the
   protest, [protesters] have only targeted the ones with Black Ribbons,
   given to them for their bravery during 9/11?

       I am sorry if we see things differently, I try to look at everything
   as a whole and in patterns. Everything we do in life and happens in life,
   there is a pattern behind it.
   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2011-10-16 15:47:24",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1576594_us-ct-meet-the-guy-who-snitched-on-occupy-wall-street-to-the.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","","os@stratfor.com",""
1586970,"Re: Anonymous and Occupy divergence...in the Iowa caucuses
","   occupying the caucasus themselves would be impossible -- as Sean noted its
   direct participatory democracy...each congressional district is split into
   not-so-small number of precincts, withe separate meeting places for
   democrats and republicans

   so my home town -- population 26k -- had 12 caucasus locations

   the greater des moines are (cue the laughter) would have something like 25
   times that

   and there is one other nice thing about Iowa -- the roads leading out are
   in immaculate condition

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   To: \"CT AOR\" <ct@stratfor.com>
   Cc: \"Peter Zeihan\" <peter.zeihan@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2011 9:30:51 PM
   Subject: Anonymous and Occupy divergence...in the Iowa caucuses

   Ironically after all my Anonymous bashing, i want to point out a very
   minor development. Mainly because it's funny to me. 

   I mentioned the Occupy Des Moines protest last week sometime.  It is very
   small, and a lot like Austin's.  They have been planning for a few weeks
   to Occupy the Iowa caucuses.  For those of you that don't know about the
   practice of the most important local democratic process in the world, the
   Iowa Caucuses are the first round of true competition between presidential
   candidates.  Unlike voting in a primary, it's more like a town hall
   meeting with much debate and discussion--a very open democratic form.  A
   candidate doesn't have to win Iowa necessarily to get the presidential
   nomination, but it serves to weed most of the bad ones early on in the
   race  (Iowans are fallible, they have made mistakes too). It's the one
   time that Iowa has an influence on politics, and I often say it is Iowa's
   one good thing.  I think it's January 3. 

   Back to the protestors.  Their plan has been developing to \"occupy\"
   candidate's offices.  That really means protest in front of the offices,
   which if you think of all the little shitty strip malls you see around,
   one small section would be a campaign office.  They have no security, and
   allow a lot of access to candidates if they choose to campaign in Iowa.
   The Occupy Des Moines group are not at all planning to disrupt the
   Caucuses functioning.  Though I wouldn't be surprised if they protested
   outside caucus meeting places, or more likely, brought their signs and
   slogans in with them.  These people are experienced organizers (as it
   comes to des moines), and know that if they have a political impact, one
   of the best places to aim it is the Caucuses. 

   Now here comes \"Anonymous.\"  Those of you that read the Wired background
   know that their real effect has been in popularizing \"memes.\"  One of
   these was actually Occupy Wall Street- 
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/occupy-wall-street-anonymous-connection_n_1021665.html 
   The mob of computer users and protest movement have been running on
   parallel tracks for awhile, and have served to mutually reinforce each
   other.

   Whoever from Anonymous made this new video about the Caucuses has made an
   ass out of themselves.  The video recommends actually shutting down the
   Caucuses.  That is both tactically dumb for the Occupy movement, but also
   totally antithetical to its general ideology.  For example, a Caucus
   functions very similarly to the Occupy General Assembly meetings--direct
   participatory democracy. 

   The Des Moines organizers have already spoken up- saying they have nothing
   to do with this \"Anonymous\" bullshit.  I'm happy to see I left them with
   some sense of realism.  This little event is not going to matter very
   much, but it shows how uncoordinated Anonymous is. 

   See the article below, the video is at the link. 

   Video calls for shutting down Iowa caucuses; the group Anonymous claims
   responsibility
   Jason Clayworth
   4:55 PM, Nov 6, 2011
   http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/06/video-calls-for-shutting-down-iowa-caucuses-the-group-anonymous-claims-responsibility/

   An anarchist-style movement that has caught the attention of the FBI and
   taken credit for hacking into military and corporate websites has now
   claimed responsibility for creating a video that urges its supporters to
   shut down the Iowa caucuses.

   Local authorities say they are aware of the video, are preparing for
   possible action by the group and are in contact with the presidential
   campaigns about the issue.

   A computer-generated voice in the online video, which had received more
   than 1,600 views by Sunday evening, says, a**Both parties are desecrating
   the American democracy and committing crimes against humanity on behalf of
   the American people.a**

   It continues: a**The primaries and caucuses put on by these parties are
   part of an elaborate scam that deceives the public into voting for
   candidates that serve the private interests of the mega corporations.
   These parties have deliberately driven tens of millions of people into
   poverty.a**

   It later says: a**We are calling upon you to occupy the campaign offices
   of presidential headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa, on Dec. 27, and
   peacefully shut down the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3.a**

   The group is believed to have no centralized operational leadership and
   appears to be piggybacking on the Occupy Des Moines movement.

   But Occupy Des Moines leaders say therea**s a difference: The Iowa
   groupa**s planned sit-ins at presidential campaign headquarters are not
   intended to shut down the Iowa caucuses, they say. Rather, they want to
   target presidential candidates and big-moneyed corporations that activists
   say are pulling the strings behind the scenes.

   While there are similarities between the groupsa** beliefs, they are
   separate, Occupy Des Moines participants emphasized Sunday.

   a**I dona**t like it one bit,a** former Rep. Ed Fallon, a Des Moines
   Democrat and participant in Occupy Des Moines, said of the video on
   Sunday. a**It doesna**t fit with my definition of Gandhi- and Martin
   Luther King Jr.-style nonviolence. The core of nonviolent action is truth.
   And if you are doing everything you can to be truthful, then you should be
   up front and transparent. No distorting of your voice or hiding.a**

   FBI sees Anonymous as security threat

   The Anonymous movement has become a potential national security threat,
   according to an article published in September by the Associated Press.

   The FBI has carried out more than 75 raids and arrested at least 16 people
   this year in connection with illegal Internet hacking jobs for which the
   group has claimed responsibility, according to the AP. One demonstration
   disrupted traffic in San Francisco as a protest after the Bay Area Rapid
   Transit system shut off cell service to deter a planned protest of a
   police shooting on a subway platform.

   The group also claimed responsibility for hacking the online payment
   processing center PayPal after it had suspended WikiLeaksa** account after
   WikiLeaks published sensitive U.S. government intelligence documents, the
   AP reported.

   Three of the Iowa campaign headquarters of presidential candidates are in
   Urbandale a** those of Michele Bachmann, a U.S. representative from
   Minnesota; former Godfathera**s Pizza CEO Herman Cain; and former
   Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

   Urbandale police are aware of the video, and while they arena**t releasing
   details of their security plans, authorities will be prepared should the
   demonstrations take an illegal turn, Urbandale officer Randy Peterson said
   Sunday.

   a**Wea**ll just try to address any issue as they arise,a** Peterson said.

   Occupy movement: We dona**t plan to interfere with voting

   Occupy Des Moines, an offshoot of an anti-Wall Street protest group, last
   week announced plans to launch nonviolent sit-ins inside campaign offices
   in the final week before the Iowa caucuses. Some of the groupa**s members
   have said they expect large-scale arrests, but they have emphasized they
   do not plan to commit violence or interfere with voting.

   a**There might be some overlapa** in what the groups believe, a**but
   Anonymous speaks for themselves and the Occupy Movement speaks for
   itself,a** said David Goodner, a demonstrator who often speaks on behalf
   of Occupy Des Moines. a**Whether the public can understand that or not,
   Ia**m not sure, but for me therea**s a clear difference.a**

   State officials were preparing for a variety of public safety scenarios
   associated with the Iowa caucuses before the video was released, said John
   Benson, a public information officer for Iowaa**s Homeland Security and
   Emergency Management Division

   a**Obviously with the video that theya**ve put out and some of the other
   work theya**re doing, that certainly increases your overall awareness,a**
   Benson said. a**But to say wea**re going to do something specific in our
   planning process, we cana**t say that right now, but it certainly has our
   attention.a**

   Party leaders: Let caucuses proceed

   Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn said the partya**s state
   central committee will discuss the situation at its next meeting.

   a**Successive generations of Iowans of both political parties have worked
   awfully hard to make sure Iowans have this opportunity to participate in
   this first-in-the-nation caucus,a** Strawn said. a**I certainly will do
   anything in my power to keep outside agitators from ruining something that
   a lot of people have worked very hard for over a long period of time.a**

   The integrity of the Iowa caucuses would be eroded should attempts to shut
   them down be successful, said Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue
   Dvorsky.

   a**If anyone is coming and planning to make it so the participants of the
   caucus cannot have a civil and civic conversation, then of course that
   would erode the integrity of the caucuses, and it flies in the face of
   what the caucuses are,a** Dvorsky said. a**Theya**re the most basic
   long-standing tradition in this country of neighbors coming together to
   talk about political issues.a**

   She continued: a**Ia**m hoping Iowans can protect their ability to speak
   freely and respectfully with their neighbors.a**

   About Anonymous

   Anonymous emerged in 2003 from an Internet chat channel where members
   organized web incidents for their own amusement.

   By 2008, the prankster nature of Anonymous morphed into a**hacktivism,a**
   where members sabotaged websites and leaked confidential information for
   political purposes, according to law enforcement authorities.

   The group has no formal leadership and is generally considered to be more
   of a movement than an organization. As the name implies, its members
   generally dona**t identify themselves.

   The group has generally concentrated on Internet hacking. This summer, it
   claimed credit for hacking into a Booz Allen Hamilton website and leaking
   email addresses of 90,000 U.S. military personnel and hacking a Monsanto
   Co. website and releasing personal data on 2,500 employees.

   Sources: USA Today and the Associated Press

   --
   Sean Noonan
   Tactical Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967
   www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-10 14:15:47",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1586970_re-anonymous-and-occupy-divergence-in-the-iowa-caucuses-.html","peter.zeihan@stratfor.com","","ct@stratfor.com,sean.noonan@stratfor.com",""
1587026,"[alpha] Occupy Wall Street (DHS analysis)
","3","2011-10-25 18:04:51",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1587026_-alpha-occupy-wall-street-dhs-analysis-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com","attach/13/13637_DHS IP Special.pdf"
1587164,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1587164_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1593553,"Re: [Fwd: RE: Mossad agent arrested over Dubai murder]
","I have VERY good information this was a contract job.  The mission was
contracted by the MOSSAD.  In essence, subbed out under contract.  The
last few hits have been subbed out.  I also have VERY good information
that the Iranian physicist hit was also a subbed out job.  More in
person at the T meeting Tuesday, can't put anything in writing.

Sean Noonan wrote:
> Ah, that makes more sense. That daily mail story was pretty sensationalized.
> 
> Looks like Melman is doing his job.  I enjoyed his article on the matter:
> 
> http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/germany-may-have-intentionally-leaked-alleged-mossad-man-s-arrest-1.295977
> 
> Fred Burton wrote:
>> No, I made no statement.  Forwarded Yossi the link to the story and that
>> was his response.
>>
>> Sean Noonan wrote:
>>   
>>> Was your statement that the arrest was over the Dubai murder? Brodsky is
>>> wanted for the passport issue.  The Sherrif of Dubai, Lt. Gen. Dhahi
>>> Khalfan Tamim (remember him?), has said they have no interest in the
>>> suspect unless directly linked to the murders themselves. 
>>>
>>> Fred Burton wrote:
>>>     
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: 	RE: Mossad agent arrested over Dubai murder
>>>> Date: 	Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:44:02 +0300
>>>> From: 	Yossi Melman <Ymelman@haaretz.co.il>
>>>> To: 	Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not true he was arrested by a request of germany and not dubai over the
>>>> obtaining a german passport deceptively which Was used in the murder/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   
>>>>       
>>> -- 
>>> Sean Noonan
>>> Tactical Analyst
>>> Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
>>> Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
>>> www.stratfor.com
>>>
>>>     
> 
> -- 
> Sean Noonan
> Tactical Analyst
> Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
> Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
> www.stratfor.com
> 
","2010-06-14 16:41:36",1,"2012-02-27 12:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1593553_re-fwd-re-mossad-agent-arrested-over-dubai-murder-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","sean.noonan@stratfor.com,tactical@stratfor.com",""
1594481,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1594481_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1614316,"Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions blast in Iran
","   The problem with Iran is that these guys have spun us in the past. 
   From: Chris Farnham <chris.farnham@stratfor.com>
   Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:58:19 -0600 (CST)
   To: sean noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>, Scott Stewart
   <scott.stewart@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions blast in
   Iran
   If a source has a strong record for accuracy and the info being sent adds
   up I don't see why we need to wait for it to be corroborated.

   We also don't have the coverage in many regions that would allow us not to
   move on anything unless it was corroborated.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Chris Farnham\" <chris.farnham@stratfor.com>, \"Fred Burton\"
   <burton@stratfor.com>, \"Scott Stewart\" <scott.stewart@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, 15 November, 2011 1:48:27 AM
   Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions blast in
   Iran

   The problem is that analysts are allowed to write on a topic heavily
   relying on their own sources.

   This shouldn't happen unless the source is well corroborated. Or maybe
   shouldn't happen at all. This is something we can fix easily as the
   company gets bigger.

   And Fred, we're keeping that insight in mind. I don't take it as gospel,
   but we are well aware that parts of it are being confirmed.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Chris Farnham <chris.farnham@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:43:17 -0600 (CST)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions blast in
   Iran
   Disagree. As WO I see a lot of insight that we give great credit to that
   is never corroborated by OS or is at least not until much later in the
   game.

   In regards to this specific piece of insight I would strongly suggest that
   it is the kind of insight that you take notice of but until you get some
   kind of corroborating info (be it from more insight or OS) it is best to
   view critically.

   I mean if we saw this published by Alex Jones or on Debka we'd laugh at
   it.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com>
   To: alpha@stratfor.com
   Sent: Tuesday, 15 November, 2011 1:30:29 AM
   Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions blast in
   Iran

   Yes but an intelligence agency that secures a single piece of insight that
   is then corroborated by the infamous OS leads one to believe that either
   the same source is responsible for both or perhaps there is smoke that
   indicates a fire?    We tend to not believe things unless there is OS. 
   The best intel never see's the light of day.  I'm more circumspect when it
   is in the OS...unless of course, we planted it.  

   p.s. I'm offended that we may believe an Iranian before a Jew. 

   cc:  APAC, JINSA. 

   On 11/14/2011 8:21 AM, Kamran Bokhari wrote:

     As an intelligence entity we can't simply accept a single piece of
     insight as truth.

     On 11/14/11 9:10 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

       Guerrilla actions behind enemy lines.  

       If we think the Izzies have set back waiting on Iran to create a bomb
       we are like the CIA with their inability to predict just about
       anything. 

       Check INSIGHT I posted last week that everyone discounted.  How come
       if its not in OS we nash our teeth?  Intelligence agencies exist to
       have sources.  That is what we are.  

       On 11/14/2011 8:06 AM, Kamran Bokhari wrote:

         Penetrating a major military installation and causing a blast is a
         totally different ballgame. Not saying it can't happen. But we can't
         assume that because they did stuxnet that they are capable of doing
         this blast as well. It is a huge leap in capabilities.

         Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
         Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
         Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:03:34 -0600 (CST)
         To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
         ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
         Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions
         blast in Iran
         It clearly does not. Look at the thousand centrifuges. Please reread
         the 2 stuxnet analyses.

         There are enough iranians who have aliyah'd to israel that they
         could easily train a persian looking, farsi speaking jew to go into
         Iran for sabotage and not get caught. I don't know that this is
         happening nor do I assume that there would not be mistakes, but its
         very possible to do this undetected. The key is recruiting human
         agents on the bases. This was clearly done with stuxnet, though it
         may have been unknowingly

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: \"Kamran Bokhari\" <bokhari@stratfor.com>
         Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
         Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:59:47 -0600 (CST)
         To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
         ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
         Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions
         blast in Iran
         Yeah this seems really unlikely. '79 was a whole different reality.
         The security establishment has the placed locked down.
         Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: Abe Selig <abe.selig@stratfor.com>
         Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
         Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:45:14 -0600 (CST)
         To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
         ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
         Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions
         blast in Iran
         There are still about 20,000 Jews in Iran (Tehran and Esfahan
         mostly), but IMO, they are far too scared of being accused as
         Israeli spies too actually help Israel out.

         On 11/14/11 7:32 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

           Ah.  As stick said, they would more likely use proxies.  But if
           not,  special operations forces do often move undetected.  Don't
           think of them as going in on a helicopter, think of them as going
           in with a group of migrant workers crossing the border.  There
           used to be a lot of jews in Iran, not so much anymore, that's who
           I would recruit form. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: \"Kamran Bokhari\" <bokhari@stratfor.com>
           To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
           Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 7:11:15 AM
           Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions
           blast in Iran

           See insight below.
           Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
           Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
           Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:10:06 -0600 (CST)
           To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
           ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
           Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions
           blast in Iran
           what commandos?

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: \"Kamran Bokhari\" <bokhari@stratfor.com>
           To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
           Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 6:39:07 AM
           Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions
           blast in Iran

           How did Israeli commandos get to operate deep inside Iran without
           being detected?
           Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
           Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
           Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 05:54:41 -0600 (CST)
           To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
           ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
           Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions
           blast in Iran
           I agree.  The argument here is that the proponents of conventional
           war are ones that want the oil prices--but is it really that
           simple?  What about other economic effects?  For Israel, by this
           argument, it doesn't matter what method as long as it sets Iran
           back----I agree with this.  However, the confidence that this guy
           has does not show publicly.  By that, I mean look at what Dagan
           was saying a year ago, and how quiet Israeli leaders have been. 
           Suddenly they are really pushing the issue, and while Dagan isn't
           it, his line is that conventional war would be a mistake, not that
           Iran doesn't need to be dealt with.  I don't really like trying to
           interpret public statements, but I think there is something here,
           and that's why I keep pushing this. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: \"Chris Farnham\" <chris.farnham@stratfor.com>
           To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
           Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 7:22:52 PM
           Subject: Re: [alpha] S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions
           blast in Iran

           I think the info that Fred sent in previously needs to be looked
           quite seriously here.

           The insight seems like quite a stretch however it has been put out
           there for some reason or another and is now playing in to what we
           are seeing.

           Insight below:

           Source below was asked to clarify his remarks that the nuclear
           infrastructure had been destroyed.  Source response:

           Israeli commandos in collaboration with Kurd forces destroyed few
           underground facilities mainly used for the Iranian defense and
           nuclear research projects.

           Despite the reports in the media and against any public knowledge,
           the promoter of a massive Israeli attack on Syria is the axis
           India-Russia-Turkey-Saudi Arabia. The axis US-Germany-France-China
           is against such an attack from obvious reasons. Not many people
           know that Russia is one of Israel's largest military partners and
           India is Israel's largest client.

           If a direct conflict between Iran and Israel erupts, Russia and
           Saudi Arabia will gain the advantages on oil increasing prices. On
           the other hand, China and Europe are expected to loose from an oil
           crisis as a result of a conflict. Based on Israeli plans, the
           attack on Iran will last only 48 hours but will be so destructive
           that Iran will be unable to retaliate or recover and the
           government will fall. It is hard to believe that Hamas or
           Hezbollah will try to get involved in this conflict.

           In the open media many are pushing and expecting Israel to launch
           a massive attack on Iran. Even if the Israelis have the
           capabilities and are ready to attack by air, sea and land, there
           is no need to attack the nuclear program at this point after the
           commandos destroyed a significant part of it.

           If a massive attack on Iran happens soon, then the attack will
           have political and oil reasons and not nuclear. It is also very
           hard to believe that the Israelis will initiate an attack unless
           they act as a contractor for other nations or if Iran or its
           proxies attack first. With the revealed of the new UN report the
           Israelis have green light to take care of the Iranian proxies in
           Gaza and Lebanon now with the entire world watching Iran. I think
           that we should expect escalations on these fronts rather than an
           Israeli attack on Iran.

           On 11/7/11 8:09 AM, Chris Farnham wrote: Ah, what? Israel has
           already destroyed the Iranian prog/infra and this is all being
           engineered by Europeans so people forget about the economy
           crisis?!

           How and when did the Israelis destroy the infra on the ground?

           Why is that we see the vast majority of the increase in pressure
           coming from Israel (I mean straight from people's mouths) and from
           the US (Such as Albright in the WaPo)?

           Would anyone actually accept that this could let the Europeans
           forget about the Euro crisis, something they have been
           experiencing every day for over a year?!

           Do we attribute any credibility to this item at all? I don't even
           see what possible disinfo purposes this could serve.

           On 11/7/11 7:54 AM, Benjamin Preisler wrote:

             Code: IL701
             Publication: for background
             Attribution: none
             Source Description - Confirmed Israeli Intelligence Agent
             Source reliability: Still testing
             Item credibility: untested
             Source handler: Fred

             Source was asked what he thought of reports that the Israelis
             were preparing a military offensive against Iran.  Response:

             I think this is a diversion. The Israelis already destroyed all
             the Iranian nuclear infrastructure on the ground weeks ago. The
             current \"let's bomb Iran\" campaign was ordered by the EU leaders
             to divert the public attention from their at home financial
             problems. It plays also well for the US  since Pakistan, Russia
             and N. Korea are mentioned in the report. 

             The result of this campaign will be massive attacks on Gaza and
             strikes on Hezbollah in both Lebanon and Syria.

             --

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>
           To: analysts@stratfor.com
           Sent: Monday, 14 November, 2011 11:52:04 AM
           Subject: Re: S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions blast in
           Iran

           wow, that's an extremely revealing statement.  The Israelis (i
           believe it was even Barak then too) made very similar comments
           following the Stuxnet news as well.  THe whole 'I'm not going to
           admit publicly that we did it, but boy that was nice.' 

           i think we need a piece laying out the details as far as we know
           of what happened and where and point out the holes in the accident
           theory. i think our assessment on the constraints of an Israeli
           attack on Iranian sites holds. It's the sabotage efforts where the
           most resources are being concentrated, which makes a lot of
           strategic and tactical sense for Israel and US in dealing with
           Iran at this stage

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

           From: \"Ben West\" <ben.west@stratfor.com>
           To: \"alerts\" <alerts@stratfor.com>
           Sent: Sunday, November 13, 2011 2:40:06 PM
           Subject: S3/G3* ISRAEL/IRAN - Barak hails munitions blast in Iran

           Interesting comments by the defense minister.

           http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i28MvYyqR9sGxc2cZ4U1QlPPQFLA?docId=CNG.93c1b5af9b6cb71a17bf389563809eb2.a1
           Israel hails deadly blast in Iran

           (AFP) - 1 hour ago 

           JERUSALEM - Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak on Sunday hailed
           the deadly munitions blast at a base of Iran's elite Revolutionary
           Guards and hoped for more such incidents.

           \"I don't know the extent of the explosion,\" he told military
           radio, asked about the incident. \"But it would be desirable if
           they multiply.\"

           Iran said earlier that a senior general who pioneered an artillery
           and missile unit was among the 17 Guards reported killed in
           Saturday's blast at Bid Ganeh, near the town of Malard on the
           western outskirts of Tehran.

           Guards spokesman commander Ramezan Sharif said the blast, which
           Iran said was an accident, occurred as \"ammunition was taken out
           of the depot and was being moved outside toward the appropriate
           site.\"

           Set up after the 1979 Islamic revolution to defend Iran, the
           Guards are in charge of the Islamic republic's missile programme,
           including Shahab-3 missiles with a range of 2,000 kilometres
           (1,200 miles) capable of hitting Israel.

           Saturday's blast came amid international condemnation of Iran
           since the release of a new UN nuclear watchdog report accusing
           Tehran of working towards the development of nuclear warheads to
           fit inside its medium-range missiles.

           Israeli officials have in past weeks warned Iran of the
           possibility of military strikes against its nuclear sites.

           Ben West
           Tactical Analyst
           STRATFOR
           512-744-4300
           ext. 4340

           --

           Chris Farnham
           Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
           Australia Mobile: 0423372241
           Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
           www.stratfor.com

           --
           Sean Noonan
           Tactical Analyst
           STRATFOR
           T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967
           www.STRATFOR.com

           --
           Sean Noonan
           Tactical Analyst
           STRATFOR
           T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967
           www.STRATFOR.com

           --
           Sean Noonan
           Tactical Analyst
           STRATFOR
           T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967
           www.STRATFOR.com

 --
 -
 Abe Selig
 Officer, Operations Center
 STRATFOR
 T: 512.279.9489 A| M: 512.574.3846
 www.STRATFOR.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   Australia Mobile: 0423372241
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   Australia Mobile: 0423372241
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-14 15:07:15",1,"2012-03-01 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1614316_re-alpha-s3-g3-israel-iran-barak-hails-munitions-blast-in.html","stewart@stratfor.com","","burton@stratfor.com,chris.farnham@stratfor.com,sean.noonan@stratfor.com",""
1627842,"Re: [OS] UK/US/AUSTRALIA/CT- WikiLeaks back online, Assange close
 to arrest
","   yes, most likely would not stop these.  but it could disrupt whatever
   might be next. 

   Also all this trouble with internet hosting could serve to slow down this
   set of leaks.  And maybe a combination of wikileaks arrest and server
   shutdowns could stop it. 
   On 12/3/10 9:20 AM, Ben West wrote:

     If Assange is running the show and his staff isn't as confident as he
     is, then arresting him now could very well stop the flow of cables. But
     all it takes is one person to keep it going - or just dump them all at
     once if it gets too dicey, and these files have been very widely
     distributed so far. I can't imagine anyone reclaiming all the documents
     now.

     On 12/3/2010 8:54 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:

       yeah also remember there was an article by nytimes i think that alot
       of people on his staff were uncomfortable with the way things were
       playing out, so without him there they may loose nerve or come to
       their better senses

       On 12/3/10 8:48 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         Yes, like Fred's source pointed out--arrest and trial would just be
         a political circus.  It would probably not disrupt wikileaks.  BUT,
         occasonally a leader makes an organization, and maybe no one as
         capable will be willing to fill his shoes.  Or at least, won't be
         able to get as much pubilicity for wikileaks.  As you also said, it
         could tarnish both Assange's and Wikileaks' repution.  That coul
         dserve to discredit and undermine the group.  Maybe people would be
         less inclined to leak to it, or the public would be less inclined to
         pay attention--or more importantly support wikileaks financially. 
         Though I admit the chance of this causing the public to pay less
         attention is minimal, and in fact would probably increase attention
         on the guy. 

         (though personally, getting a rapist off the street is getting a
         rapist off the street.  Also, his mom owns a puppet theater...)

         On 12/3/10 8:38 AM, Ben West wrote:

           What would the overall significance of his arrest be? It's likely
           that the files are backed up elsewhere and that someone else could
           give the go-ahead for releasing them (that could very well already
           be the case) and if his back-ups are anything like Assange, they
           would welcome the publicity that would come to them by filling his
           shoes.

           If the British got custody of him, they could conduct searches or
           evidence that would support rape charges and, if they happened to
           find material regarding the leaks, that could lead to new charges.
           But this has been coming for a while, and if Assange was smart, he
           would have turned over any really sensitive stuff by now, which
           would decrease the likelihood of police finding anything juicy.

           Seems to me that all this really does is tarnish his reputation
           and make him look like scum. It provides some public distraction
           from all the leaked documents, but doesn't undermine their impact
           - just undermines the character of the person who facilitated the
           leaks.

           any other thoughts?

           On 12/3/2010 7:40 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

             I may have sent this out before- Assange walking out of a CNN
             interview.

             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lisa9XTRLb4

             just shows how far his head is up his ass. 
             On 12/3/10 7:32 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

               looks like Assange is in the UK and they might actually roll
               on him.

               On 12/3/10 7:31 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

                 *OG source
                 Net closes on Assange: arrest by British police expected in
                 days
                 By Mark Hughes and Jerome Taylor
                 Friday, 3 December 2010
                 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/net-closes-on-assange-arrest-by-british-police-expected-in-days-2149805.html

                 Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, is expected to be
                 arrested in the coming days after Swedish prosecutors filed
                 a new warrant with British authorities.

                 The Independent revealed yesterday that a procedural error
                 with the European Arrest Warrant had delayed the arrest of
                 the 39-year-old Australian, who is wanted in Sweden over
                 sexual allegations but has been in England since October.

                 Police in Gothenburg claim they have now submitted a fresh
                 warrant to the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Soca is
                 expected to instruct Scotland Yard to arrest Mr Assange and
                 have him appear before an extradition hearing - although as
                 of last night the Metropolitan Police had yet to receive the
                 warrant.

                 Police sources have previously said that they received a
                 letter from Mr Assange's UK-based lawyer, Mark Stephens,
                 containing information about how to contact Mr Assange
                 should they need to.

                 Details of the new arrest warrant came as a last-ditch
                 attempt to have the allegations against Mr Assange dropped
                 failed. Sweden's highest court upheld the arrest order and
                 refused to let him appeal against a lower court's ruling.

                 Last night, Mr Assange's family spoke of their fears for his
                 safety after increasingly shrill statements from American
                 commentators who have called for his assassination. His
                 mother, Christine Assange, said \"the forces that he's
                 challenging are too big\".

                 The arrest warrant filed with Soca states that he was wanted
                 on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful
                 coercion. But Soca requested a new warrant. A spokeswoman
                 for the Swedish National Police Board told the BBC that the
                 original one had been refused because it listed only the
                 maximum penalty for the most serious crime alleged, rather
                 than for all of the crimes.

                 When the arrest is made, Mr Assange will be taken before an
                 extradition hearing at Westminster magistrates' court. If he
                 refuses to be extradited, a judge will preside over an
                 extradition hearing and will rule whether he should be sent
                 to Sweden or discharged.

                 Last night, Mr Stephens said he would challenge any arrest
                 in British courts. \"The process in this case has been so
                 utterly irregular that the chances of a valid arrest warrant
                 being submitted to me are very small,\" he said. Mr Stephens
                 has accused Swedish prosecutors of launching a witch-hunt
                 against his client, who strongly denies the rape allegations
                 and says he is being smeared because of the exposes
                 published by his website.

                 He has maintained that Swedish prosecutors have yet to
                 provide any evidence against Mr Assange and have ignored his
                 requests to meet with them. He also expressed concerns at
                 the way the UK and Swedish authorities were handling the
                 case.

                 \"I feel like I am sitting in the middle of a surreal Swedish
                 fairytale,\" he said. \"The trolls keep threatening to come on
                 and keep making noises off stage. But at the moment, no
                 appearance from them.\"

                 In an interview with an Australian newspaper, Mr Assange's
                 mother defended her son and lambasted hawks in the US who
                 have called for his death.

                 Ms Assange, who runs a puppet theatre in Noosa, a Queensland
                 beach resort, defended her son's decision to publish
                 thousands of classified US documents on the website. \"He
                 sees what he's doing as doing a good thing in the world -
                 fighting baddies, if you like,\" she told Queensland's
                 Courier-Mail.

                 Ms Assange - who does not even own a computer - described
                 her son as a hero of the internet. But she added that she
                 feared he had \"gotten too smart for himself\", saying: \"I'm
                 concerned it's gotten too big and the forces that he's
                 challenging are too big.\" She did not want him \"hunted down
                 and jailed\".

                 On 12/3/10 7:24 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

                   WikiLeaks back online, Assange close to arrest

                   Updated 2 hours 45 minutes ago
                   http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/03/3084384.htm

                   The WikiLeaks website is back online with a new Swiss
                   address after its previous domain name was killed.

                   The whistleblower website's original domain host,
                   EveryDNS.net, says it terminated its services because
                   Wikileaks had been coming under \"massive\" cyber attacks.

                   The new address - wikileaks.ch - was put online six hours
                   after the original site wikileaks.org was killed.

                   An internet trace of the new domain name suggests that the
                   site itself is still hosted in Sweden and in France.

                   Web users accessing the wikileaks.ch address are directed
                   to a page under the URL http://213.251.145.96/ which gives
                   them access to the former site, including a massive trove
                   of leaked US diplomatic traffic.

                   The WikiLeaks website released more than 250,000 secret US
                   diplomatic cables this week, which has left governments
                   around the world scrambling to deal with the fallout.

                   Meanwhile, British media reports Scotland Yard could
                   arrest the site's founder Julian Assange within days.

                   Prosecutors in Sweden want to question Mr Assange over
                   alleged sex crimes involving two women during a visit to
                   Stockholm in August.

                   Mr Assange, who was born in Australia, has not been
                   charged and he denies the allegations.

                   He reportedly avoided arrest this week because Swedish
                   authorities had filled out an Interpol red notice
                   incorrectly.

                   Britain's Independent newspaper reports that police know
                   Mr Assange's whereabouts in England and are expected to
                   arrest him in the coming days.

                   Mr Assange's Stockholm-based lawyer Bjoern Hurtig says he
                   will fight his client's extradition to Sweden in the event
                   of his arrest.

                   \"Together with my British colleague Mark Stephens and
                   international experts, we will fight the extradition
                   warrants,\" he said.

                   A WikiLeaks spokesman says Mr Assange has to remain out of
                   the public eye because he is facing assassination threats
                   following the whistleblowing website's publication of the
                   secret cables.

                   Several US senators have also called for him to be charged
                   with espionage.

                   Senator Dianne Feinstein says the leak is a serious breach
                   of national security and action must be taken.

                   \"We have reviewed the espionage statutes and we believe it
                   qualifies,\" she said.

                   \"That this, allowed to be carried out, incapacitates this
                   nation to carry out business.\"
                   --

                   Sean Noonan

                   Tactical Analyst

                   Office: +1 512-279-9479

                   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

                   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

                   www.stratfor.com

                 --

                 Sean Noonan

                 Tactical Analyst

                 Office: +1 512-279-9479

                 Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

                 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

                 www.stratfor.com

               --

               Sean Noonan

               Tactical Analyst

               Office: +1 512-279-9479

               Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

               Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

               www.stratfor.com

             --

             Sean Noonan

             Tactical Analyst

             Office: +1 512-279-9479

             Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

             Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

             www.stratfor.com

 --
 Ben West
 Tactical Analyst
 STRATFOR
 Austin, TX

         --

         Sean Noonan

         Tactical Analyst

         Office: +1 512-279-9479

         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

         www.stratfor.com

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com


 --
 Ben West
 Tactical Analyst
 STRATFOR
 Austin, TX

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-03 16:23:51",1,"2012-02-28 13:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1627842_re-os-uk-us-australia-ct-wikileaks-back-online-assange-close.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1628042,"Re: WATCH ITEM- WikiLeaks 'Insurance File'
","   Yes.=A0 The problem is at least one other person has it too.=A0

   On 12/7/10 3:26 PM, Fred Burton wrote:

 Founder needs to be water boarded until he gives us th=
 e code.

 scott stewart wrote:

 Remember what I said this morning about blow-back to them if they
 release names of innocent people.

 *From:* analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
 [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com] *On Behalf Of *Sean Noonan
 *Sent:* Tuesday, December 07, 2010 3:16 PM
 *To:* Analyst List
 *Cc:* watchofficer
 *Subject:* Re: WATCH ITEM- WikiLeaks 'Insurance File'

 Though actually now I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric that the events so
 far have not reached the level for Wikileaks to release this file. Was
 it a bluff?

 LONDON -- Even though its founder is under arrest, WikiLeaks says it
 has no plans, for now, to release the code that would reveal some of
 its most important documents.

 The code is an \"insurance
 <http://www.foxnews.com=
 /world/2010/12/07/wikileaks-plans-release-insurance-file/>\"
 file that WikiLeaks says has been given to some of its supporters in
 case of an emergency. It's a key to a heavily encrypted version of the
 documents.

 A spokesman says it will only be used if \"grave matters\" take place
 involving WikiLeaks staff. But he didn't elaborate on what those might be.
 Read more:
 http://www.f=
 oxnews.com/world/2010/12/07/wikileaks-plans-release-insurance-file/#ixzz17S=
 VW0dZn

 Assange:
 \"The Cable Gate archive has been spread, along with significant
 material from the US and other countries to over 100,000 people in
 encrypted form,\" he said in the online forum. \"If something happens to
 us, the key parts will be released automatically. Further, the Cable
 Gate archives is in the hands of multiple news organizations.=94
 http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1207/Will-WikiLeaks-Jul=
 ian-Assange-now-arrested-take-the-nuclear-option


 On 12/7/10 1:49 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

 Assange was denied bail this morning. They previously threatened to
 release the insurance file if their site was shut down or if Assange
 was arrested/\"persecuted.\" Now both have happened.

 Please watch for them to release it.

 --=20

 Sean Noonan

 Tactical Analyst

 Office: +1 512-279-9479

 Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

 www.=
 stratfor.com <http://www.stratfor.com>

 --=20

 Sean Noonan

 Tactical Analyst

 Office: +1 512-279-9479

 Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

 www.=
 stratfor.com <http://www.stratfor.com>


   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-07 22:32:58",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1628042_re-watch-item-wikileaks-insurance-file-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","","burton@stratfor.com",""
1630947,"Re: Profile of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
","   yeah.  he gave a great demonstration of that in this interview:
   http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/10/24/2010-10-24_wikileaks_julian_assange_walks_out_of_cnn_interview_when_asked_about_rape_charge.html

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"scott stewart\" <scott.stewart@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 1:15:22 PM
   Subject: RE: Profile of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

   He is a delusional nut.

    

   From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
   On Behalf Of Sean Noonan
   Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 11:56 AM
   To: Analyst List
   Subject: Re: Profile of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

    

   his ego will be his downfall

   On 10/24/10 9:51 AM, Nate Hughes wrote:

   October 23, 2010
   WikiLeaks Founder on the Run, Trailed by Notoriety
   By JOHN F. BURNS and RAVI SOMAIYA
   LONDON a** Julian Assange moves like a hunted man. In a noisy Ethiopian
   restaurant in Londona**s rundown Paddington district, he pitches his voice
   barely above a whisper to foil the Western intelligence agencies he fears.

   He demands that his dwindling number of loyalists use expensive encrypted
   cellphones and swaps his own as other men change shirts. He checks into
   hotels under false names, dyes his hair, sleeps on sofas and floors, and
   uses cash instead of credit cards, often borrowed from friends.

   a**By being determined to be on this path, and not to compromise, Ia**ve
   wound up in an extraordinary situation,a** Mr. Assange said over lunch
   last Sunday, when he arrived sporting a woolen beanie and a wispy stubble
   and trailing a youthful entourage that included a filmmaker assigned to
   document any unpleasant surprises.

   In his remarkable journey to notoriety, Mr. Assange, founder of the
   WikiLeaks whistle-blowersa** Web site, sees the next few weeks as his most
   hazardous. Now he is making his most brazen disclosure yet: 391,832 secret
   documents on the Iraqi war. He held a news conference in London on
   Saturday, saying that the release a**constituted the most comprehensive
   and detailed account of any war ever to have entered the public record.a**

   Twelve weeks ago, he posted on his organizationa**s Web site some 77,000
   classified Pentagon documents on the Afghan conflict.

   Much has changed since 2006, when Mr. Assange, a 39-year-old Australian,
   used years of computer hacking and what friends call a near genius I.Q. to
   establish WikiLeaks, redefining whistle-blowing by gathering secrets in
   bulk, storing them beyond the reach of governments and others determined
   to retrieve them, then releasing them instantly, and globally.

   Now it is not just governments that denounce him: some of his own comrades
   are abandoning him for what they see as erratic and imperious behavior,
   and a nearly delusional grandeur unmatched by an awareness that the
   digital secrets he reveals can have a price in flesh and blood.

   Several WikiLeaks colleagues say he alone decided to release the Afghan
   documents without removing the names of Afghan intelligence sources for
   NATO troops. a**We were very, very upset with that, and with the way he
   spoke about it afterwards,a** said Birgitta Jonsdottir, a core WikiLeaks
   volunteer and a member of Icelanda**s Parliament. a**If he could just
   focus on the important things he does, it would be better.a**

   He is also being investigated in connection with accusations of rape and
   molestation involving two Swedish women. Mr. Assange has denied the
   allegations, saying the relations were consensual. But prosecutors in
   Sweden have yet to formally approve charges or dismiss the case eight
   weeks after the complaints against Mr. Assange were filed, damaging his
   quest for a secure base for himself and WikiLeaks. Though he characterizes
   the claims as a**a smear campaign,a** the scandal has compounded the
   pressures of his cloaked life.

   a**When it comes to the point where you occasionally look forward to being
   in prison on the basis that you might be able to spend a day reading a
   book, the realization dawns that perhaps the situation has become a little
   more stressful than you would like,a** he said over the London lunch.

   Exposing Secrets

   Mr. Assange has come a long way from an unsettled childhood in Australia
   as a self-acknowledged social misfit who narrowly avoided prison after
   being convicted on 25 charges of computer hacking in 1995. History is
   punctuated by spies, defectors and others who revealed the most
   inflammatory secrets of their age. Mr. Assange has become that figure for
   the Internet era, with as yet unreckoned consequences for himself and for
   the keepers of the worlda**s secrets.

   a**Ia**ve been waiting 40 years for someone to disclose information on a
   scale that might really make a difference,a** said Daniel Ellsberg, who
   exposed a 1,000-page secret study of the Vietnam War in 1971 that became
   known as the Pentagon Papers.

   Mr. Ellsberg said he saw kindred spirits in Mr. Assange and Pfc. Bradley
   Manning, the 22-year-old former Army intelligence operative under
   detention in Quantico, Va., suspected of leaking the Iraq and Afghan
   documents.

   a**They were willing to go to prison for life, or be executed, to put out
   this information,a** Mr. Ellsberg said.

   Underlying Mr. Assangea**s anxieties is deep uncertainty about what the
   United States and its allies may do next. Pentagon and Justice department
   officials have said they are weighing his actions under the 1917 Espionage
   Act. They have demanded that Mr. Assange a**returna** all government
   documents in his possession, undertake not to publish any new ones and not
   a**solicita** further American materials.

   Mr. Assange has responded by going on the run, but has found no refuge.
   Amid the Afghan documents controversy, he flew to Sweden, seeking a
   residence permit and protection under that countrya**s broad press
   freedoms. His initial welcome was euphoric.

   a**They called me the James Bond of journalism,a** he recalled wryly.
   a**It got me a lot of fans, and some of them ended up causing me a bit of
   trouble.a**

   Within days, his liaisons with two Swedish women led to an arrest warrant
   on charges of rape and molestation. Karin Rosander, a spokesperson for the
   prosecutor, said last week that the police were continuing to investigate.

   In late September, he left Stockholm for Berlin. A bag he checked on the
   almost empty flight disappeared, with three encrypted laptops. It has not
   resurfaced; Mr. Assange suspects it was intercepted. From Germany, he
   traveled to London, wary at being detained on arrival. Under British law,
   his Australian passport entitles him to remain for six months. Iceland,
   another country with generous press freedoms and a strong WikiLeaks
   following, has also lost its appeal, with Mr. Assange concluding that its
   government, like Britaina**s, is too easily influenced by Washington. In
   his native Australia, ministers have signaled their willingness to
   cooperate with the United States if it opens a prosecution. Mr. Assange
   said a senior Australian official told him, a**You play outside the rules,
   and you will be dealt with outside the rules.a**

   He faces attack from within, too.

   After the Sweden scandal, strains within WikiLeaks reached a breaking
   point, with some of Mr. Assangea**s closest collaborators publicly
   defecting. The New York Times spoke with dozens of people who have worked
   with and supported him in Iceland, Sweden, Germany, Britain and the United
   States. What emerged was a picture of the founder of WikiLeaks as its
   prime innovator and charismatic force but as someone whose growing
   celebrity has been matched by an increasingly dictatorial, eccentric and
   capricious style.

   Internal Turmoil

   Effectively, as Mr. Assange pursues his fugitivea**s life, his leadership
   is enforced over the Internet. Even remotely, his style is imperious. In
   an online exchange with one volunteer, a transcript of which was obtained
   by The Times, he warned that WikiLeaks would disintegrate without him.
   a**Wea**ve been in a Unity or Death situation for a few months now,a** he
   said.

   When Herbert Snorrason, a 25-year-old political activist in Iceland,
   questioned Mr. Assangea**s judgment over a number of issues in an online
   exchange last month, Mr. Assange was uncompromising. a**I dona**t like
   your tone,a** he said, according to a transcript. a**If it continues,
   youa**re out.a**

   Mr. Assange cast himself as indispensable. a**I am the heart and soul of
   this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder,
   organizer, financier, and all the rest,a** he said. a**If you have a
   problem with me,a** he told Mr. Snorrason, using an expletive, he should
   quit.

   In an interview about the exchange, Mr. Snorrasona**s conclusion was
   stark. a**He is not in his right mind,a** he said. In London, Mr. Assange
   was dismissive of all those who have criticized him. a**These are not
   consequential people,a** he said.

   a**About a dozena** disillusioned volunteers have left recently, said
   Smari McCarthy, an Icelandic volunteer who has distanced himself in the
   recent turmoil. In late summer, Mr. Assange suspended Daniel
   Domscheit-Berg, a German who had been the WikiLeaks spokesman under the
   pseudonym Daniel Schmitt, accusing him of unspecified a**bad behavior.a**
   Many more activists, Mr. McCarthy said, are likely to follow.

   Mr. Assange denied that any important volunteers had quit, apart from Mr.
   Domscheit-Berg. But further defections could paralyze an organization that
   Mr. Assange says has 40 core volunteers and about 800 mostly unpaid
   followers to maintain a diffuse web of computer servers and to secure the
   system against attack a** to guard against the kind of infiltration that
   WikiLeaks itself has used to generate its revelations.

   Mr. Assangea**s detractors also accuse him of pursuing a vendetta against
   the United States. In London, Mr. Assange said America was an increasingly
   militarized society and a threat to democracy. Moreover, he said, a**we
   have been attacked by the United States, so we are forced into a position
   where we must defend ourselves.a**

   Even among those challenging Mr. Assangea**s leadership style, there is
   recognition that the intricate computer and financial architecture
   WikiLeaks uses to shield it against its enemies has depended on its
   founder. a**Hea**s very unique and extremely capable,a** said Ms.
   Jonsdottir, the Icelandic lawmaker.

   A Rash of Scoops

   Before posting the documents on Afghanistan and Iraq, WikiLeaks enjoyed a
   string of coups.

   Supporters were thrilled when the organization posted documents on the
   GuantA!namo Bay detention operation, the contents of Sarah Palina**s
   personal Yahoo email account, reports of extrajudicial killings in Kenya
   and East Timor, the membership rolls of the neo-Nazi British National
   Party and a combat video showing American Apache helicopters in Baghdad in
   2007 gunning down at least 12 people, including two Reuters journalists.

   But now, WikiLeaks has been met with new doubts. Amnesty International and
   Reporters Without Borders have joined the Pentagon in criticizing the
   organization for risking peoplea**s lives by publishing war logs
   identifying Afghans working for the Americans or acting as informers.

   A Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan using the pseudonym Zabiullah Mujahid
   said in a telephone interview that the Taliban had formed a nine-member
   a**commissiona** after the Afghan documents were posted a**to find about
   people who are spying.a** He said the Taliban had a a**wanteda** list of
   1,800 Afghans and was comparing that with names WikiLeaks provided.

   a**After the process is completed, our Taliban court will decide about
   such people,a** he said.

   Mr. Assange defended posting unredacted documents, saying he balanced his
   decision a**with the knowledge of the tremendous good and prevention of
   harm that is causeda** by putting the information into the public domain.
   a**There are no easy choices on the table for this organization,a** he
   said.

   But if Mr. Assange is sustained by his sense of mission, faith is fading
   among his fellow conspirators. His mood was caught vividly in an exchange
   on Sept. 20 with another senior WikiLeaks figure. In an encrypted online
   chat, a transcript of which was passed to The Times, Mr. Assange was
   dismissive of his colleagues. He described them as a**a confederacy of
   fools,a** and asked his interlocutor, a**Am I dealing with a complete
   retard?a**

   In London, Mr. Assange was angered when asked about the rifts. He
   responded testily to questions about WikiLeaksa**s opaque finances,
   Private Manninga**s fate and WikiLeaksa**s apparent lack of accountability
   to anybody but himself, calling the questions a**cretinous,a**
   a**facilea** and reminiscent of a**kindergarten.a**

   Mr. Assange has been equivocal about Private Manning, talking in late
   summer as though the soldier was unavoidable collateral damage, much like
   the Afghans named as informers in the secret Pentagon documents.

   But in London, he took a more sympathetic view, describing Private Manning
   as a a**political prisonera** facing a jail term of up to 52 years,
   without confirming that he was the source of the disclosed war logs. a**We
   have a duty to assist Mr. Manning and other people who are facing legal
   and other consequences,a** he said.

   Mr. Assangea**s own fate seems as imperiled as Private Manninga**s. Last
   Monday, the Swedish Migration Board said Mr. Assangea**s bid for a
   residence permit had been rejected. His British visa will expire early
   next year. When he left the London restaurant at twilight, heading into
   the shadows, he declined to say where he was going. The man who has put
   some of the worlda**s most powerful institutions on his watch list was,
   once more, on the move.

   Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington, and Dexter Filkins
   from Kabul, Afghanistan.

   --

   Nathan Hughes
   Director
   Military Analysis
   STRATFOR
   www.stratfor.com

    

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com

   --
   Sean Noonan
   Tactical Analyst
   Office: +1 512-279-9479
   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   www.stratfor.com
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1630947_re-profile-of-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","","scott.stewart@stratfor.com",""
1633932,"Re: Assange is off the hook...
","   Also dude... on a note of hilarity... imagine what would happen if people
   could no longer leak or publish leaks... The entire government would stop
   working. \"Leaking\" is how shit gets done.

   Don't be mad at the \"method\", be mad at this douche.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 11:48:48 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   like jogging.......

   ?????

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:47:05 AM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   Yeah but my point was that the common folk are not outraged except at
   Assange. He wanted people to be outraged at the government. Nobody is, in
   fact most people think the diplomats are doing their job. That's a change
   considering what low opinion most people have of diplomats.

   And as for my comment about wikileaks, I was being far more philosophical
   than the question of whether it is illegal or not. From time to time, you
   got to leak some stuff... it's just the way it is. It's good for the
   country. Doesn't feel nice, but it's good. Like jogging.

   But my overall point here is that Assange is just an anti-American prick
   who things he is going to leak some stuff that leaves the American people
   outraged. What an idiot. As Stewart said the other night, this is the
   country that sold weapons to Iran so that we can fund right-wing
   guerrillas in Central America. And this idiot thought we would be outraged
   by someone calling Merkel \"risk-averse\".

   He is a fucking idiot.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 11:42:17 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   Queensland= Aussie Texas.  Y'all have an attitude that Alabamans don't. 

   Last I saw Assange was charged with sexual assault, not rape.  That's
   different in the US, obviously, but no idea about Sweden. 

   And Marko, I beg to differ.  The leaks are wrong.  Are they seriously
   damaging? No, but that doesn't make it OK.  Serious laws were violated
   here, and the only reason they have some freedom of movement is because
   Wikileaks (presumably) is not state-sponsored and claim to be some sort of
   journalism.  But that is BS, these documents were stolen and published
   illegally.  We can go into the whole argument of overclassification- and
   be right to say that most of this stuff should no longer be classified. 
   That does not change the fact that the documents were classified.  Some
   sort of civil disobedience is not going to change the USG's culture of
   secrecy.  That idea by Assange is just ludicrous.  This is just an
   NGO-version of espionage and everyone involved should be arrested and
   tried accordingly (and disrupted if we can't get them to court).

   What Matt said about a large number of the American right being pretty
   pissed off about these is also true.  Assange has been called a terrorist
   many times, I think Palin wanted to hunt him down.   

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Meredith Friedman\" <mfriedman@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:21:43 AM
   Subject: RE: Assange is off the hook...

   The Landsdowne Hotel and the pub crawls...but I totally agree with your
   view on Queensland!!

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
   On Behalf Of Chris Farnham
   Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 11:17 PM
   To: Analyst List
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...
   Oh the teaching is still first rate and turned me in to the intellectual
   Adonis that I am. Was just that the majority of the company there sucked.
   Nestled between Glebe and Newtown since their gentrification hasn't
   helped, I don't think. Thank god for the Landsdowne Hotel!!

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Meredith Friedman\" <mfriedman@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 1:09:42 PM
   Subject: RE: Assange is off the hook...

   I am a proud alumnus of Sydney Uni thank you very much. But it was much
   better back then....

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]
   On Behalf Of Chris Farnham
   Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 11:07 PM
   To: Analyst List
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...
   If you think you're going to get any argument out of me on Usyd you're
   going to be disappointed. 
   The place was full of left wing socialist wankers or college boy, Aviator
   wearing, popped collar rich kids. 
   Going to hazard a guess that Assange may also have studied there as well.
   Queensland is Australia's version of Alabama, only with better beaches. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"George Friedman\" <gfriedman@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:53:55 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   It is possible to revoke citizenship on the grounds of being a dickhead
   except in Australia, where all of Queensland and a good part of South
   Australia, along with all of Sydney Uni would lose their passports.

   On 12/05/10 22:42 , Chris Farnham wrote:

     Is it possible to revoke some one's citizenship on the grounds of them
     being a total dickhead? 
     I don't care about the other leaks but the ones he has made that
     potentially damage Australian interests upset me. 
     If I thought I could switch this dickhead off without getting done I
     don't think I'd have too much of a problem.
     BTW, close family friend in Sweden who knows the girl that is pressing
     charges tells me that there is absolutely nothing behind it other than
     prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves. My friend
     speaks rather disparagingly about the girl who is claiming molestation.
     I also think the whole rape thing is incorrect for if I remember
     correctly rape was never the charge. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:23:03 PM
     Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

     What a douche.

     And I just want to be clear here... I have no problem with the leaks. I
     think they're great. And I think it may be good on some level to have
     stuff like this come out once in a while. What I can't stand is A) his
     ego trip and B) his clear anti-Americanism. Take the time to read the
     intro to Cablegate when you get the chance. This guy hates America more
     than OBL.

     What I love, however, is how nobody in the U.S. is mad about the cables.
     Hell, I have a better opinion of State Department diplomats now than I
     did before the cables. They actually said a few smart things here and
     there. I actually gave them a tip of my hat.

     I want to see him try to take on the Russians. He'd be going bald in an
     Iceland hospital within days.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:11:39 PM
     Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

     should we change our Stratfor motto now?
     Predictive, insightful intelligence...in a post-Cablegate world.
     On Dec 5, 2010, at 10:05 PM, Marko Papic wrote:

       This guy needs to take pills for his ego:

      He suggested, not for the first time, that he believes his document
      service has had a profound effect on world history: a**I believe
      geopolitics will be separated into pre- and post-Cablegate phases.a**

       Also, I have a question about this part (this is Assange's lawyer
       saying how Wikileaks would release full versions of all files --
       including names of spies, etc. -- if harmed):

      WikiLeaks, Mr. Stephens said, has a**been subject to cyberattacks and
      censorship around the world and they need to protect themselves ... This
      is what they believe to be a thermonuclear device in the information
      age.a**

       Let's say the following scenario happens. Assange is arrested and
       extradicted to Sweden to face rape charges. Wikileaks releases the
       password to the insurance files. Would he not then be directly
       endangering U.S. and other country intelligence professionals? Would
       it not then be possible to prosecute him for espionage? 

       -- 
       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
       Marko Papic
       Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
       STRATFOR
       700 Lavaca Street - 900
       Austin, Texas
       78701 USA
       P: + 1-512-744-4094
       marko.papic@stratfor.com

     --
     Marko Papic

     STRATFOR Analyst
     C: + 1-512-905-3091
     marko.papic@stratfor.com

     --

     Chris Farnham
     Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
     China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
     Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
     www.stratfor.com

   --

   George Friedman

   Founder and CEO

   Stratfor

   700 Lavaca Street

   Suite 900

   Austin, Texas 78701

   Phone  512-744-4319

   Fax  512-744-4334

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --
   Sean Noonan
   Tactical Analyst
   Office: +1 512-279-9479
   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   www.stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --
   Sean Noonan
   Tactical Analyst
   Office: +1 512-279-9479
   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   www.stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-06 07:05:23",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1633932_re-assange-is-off-the-hook-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","sean.noonan@stratfor.com",""
1634202,"Re: USE ME Re: Discussion- Assange Arrested
","   If we decide to publish on this, I could probably benefit from a close
   read through from one or more of you.=C2=A0 I'm not sure my thoughts are
   coming across clearly.=C2=A0

   On 12/7/10 7:43 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     *Here's my full set of thoughts.=C2=A0 This may be a little too informal
     for our regular articles.=C2=A0 Hopefully this addresses the questions
     that have already come up.=C2=A0

     London Metropolitan police arrested Julian Assange, the founder and
     public spokesman for WikiLeaks, at 0930 GMT December 7.=C2=A0 He = is
     due to appear in a court in Westminster soon to face charges of rape,
     accused by two woman in Sweden.=C2=A0 Charges of sexual assault rarely
     are passed through Interpol red notices, like this case, so this is no
     doubt about trying to disrupt WikiLeaks release of government
     documents.=C2=A0 While it's possible that Assange's arrest could disrupt
     the long-term viability of WikiLeaks, it will not stop the release of
     cables in the short-term and governments will now be concerned about
     what the organization may release in revenge.

     Leadership is extremely important in non-governmental organizations that
     have not institutionalized.=C2=A0 From terrorist grous=C2=A0 to
     charities [LINK:
     http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090923_death_top_indonesian_militant</=
     a>], these organizations often ebb and flow along with their
     founders.=C2= =A0 WikiLeaks is a new organization that has a created a
     novel method for an old practice- leaking confidential government
     information in an attempt to influence politics.=C2=A0 Leaking will not
     go away with Assange's arrest, but WikiLeaks might.=C2=A0

     WikiLeaks created itself with Assange as the only public face-- he leads
     supports, drives donations, and faces criticism.=C2=A0 This has made
     many in the organization unhappy, and some have left it after
     disagreeing with him.=C2=A0 If Assange were to face charges in Sweden
     for sexual assault or new charges in the UK or US and was found guilty,
     WikiLeaks would still need someone to operate it.=C2=A0 Assan= ge may
     have someone waiting in the wings, but that is not evident.=C2=A0=

     WikiLeaks has also suffered logistically and as a brand.=C2=A0 As
     national governments put pressure on its infrastructure, its websites
     have been shut and most importantly its main source of funding- PayPal-
     has closed WikiLeaks account.=C2=A0 With such pressu= re and government
     monitoring, future leakers may be too afraid of getting intercepted and
     go elsewhere.=C2=A0 Moreover, this new set of documents have not worked
     out like Assange expected- the public is not angry at the State
     Department, but many are angry at Assange and his organization.=C2=A0

     Assange's arrest won't stop the continued leaks of this large batch of
     US State Department cables.=C2=A0 It also won't shut down WikiLeaks,
     which still maintains its website and the ability to collect information
     from leakers.=C2=A0 So in the short-term, WikiLea= ks will
     maintain.=C2=A0 The question remains if it has created a truly
     sustainable institutions-- one where leaders are replacable, members can
     adapt to changing circumstance, and representatives can aid and inspire
     new leakers.=C2=A0

     If Asange is extradited to Sweden and tried of one count of unlawful
     coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape, will
     he be able to maintain WikiLeaks image?=C2=A0 That is hard to say, but
     growing public criticism of him indicates his inability to grow
     WikiLeaks support base.=C2=A0 Western govrenments also fear whatever is
     contained in his ___ file, for which he threatens to release an
     encryption key if something happens to him.=C2=A0 WikiLeaks has already
     released its most damaging documents= -- its attempt to get public
     attention-- and they haven't amounted to much.=C2=A0 This new file
     likely contains no more damaging informatio= n, but instead is full of
     names.=C2=A0 The names of sources who will be = at risk and those of
     diplomats, military or intelligence officers who could lose their
     jobs.=C2=A0

     WikiLeaks is now facing a conundrum that all new organizations do--the
     ability to maintain and transition leadership through adverse
     circumstances.=C2=A0 Maybe Assange will be released quickly-- STRATFOR
     cannot speak to the veracity of the charges against him-- but if he
     isn't, WikiLeaks will struggle to survive.=C2=A0

     On 12/7/10 6:36 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:

       I would imagine the most politically \"exciting\" stuff has been
       published (much of which we already knew) but some of the less sexy
       things may be more damaging when released or released uncensored b/c
       it burns sources and people's careers (a few people have already lost
       their jobs in western countries...what about sources in less
       democratic countries)

       On 12/7/10 5:18 AM, Emre Dogru wrote:

         I am not clear about your argument in the last line. Why this arrest
         could disrupt long-term viability of Wikileaks? I would say the
         opposite, that there might be short-term disruptions (latest release
         was two days ago) but Wikileaks will work in the long-term. They
         already have over 250K documents and if they release them at the
         same pace, Wikileaks will have very long-term viability. Also, Ben's
         point below about possibly backed up documents is worth
         considering.=C2=A0
         One more question. How do we now that Wikileaks has more sensitive
         information that governments should be concerned about as a revenge?
         Recall George's initial argument that they probably published most
         sensitive information at the very beginning to draw attention.=C2=A0

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@st= ratfor.com>
         To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor= .com>
         Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2010 12:42:49 PM
         Subject: Discussion- Assange Arrested

         We had the discussion below on Friday when it was first suggested
         that Assange would be arrested.=C2=A0 Here's a bit more:

         London Metropolitan police arrested Julian Assange, the founder and
         public spokesman for WikiLeaks, at 0930 GMT December 7.=C2=A0 He is
         due to appear in a court in Westminster soon to face charges of
         rape, accused by two woman in Sweden.=C2=A0 Charges of sexual
         assault rarely are passed through Interpol red notices, like this
         case, so this is no doubt about trying to disrupt WikiLeaks release
         of government documents.=C2=A0 While it's possible that Assange's
         arrest could disrupt the long-term viability of WikiLeaks, it will
         not stop the release of cables in the short-term and governments
         will now be concerned about what the organization may release in
         revenge.

         see discussion below.=C2=A0 (revenge =3D that encrypted 'security'
         file)

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@= stratfor.com>
         To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratf= or.com>
         Sent: Friday, December 3, 2010 10:23:51 AM
         Subject: Re: [OS] UK/US/AUSTRALIA/CT- WikiLeaks back online, Assange
         close=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0=C2=A0=C2=A0to arrest

         yes, most likely would not stop these.=C2=A0 but it could disrupt
         whatever might be next.=C2=A0

         Also all this trouble with internet hosting could serve to slow down
         this set of leaks.=C2=A0 And maybe a combination of wikileaks arrest
         and server shutdowns could stop it.=C2=A0
         On 12/3/10 9:20 AM, Ben West wrote:

           If Assange is running the show and his staff isn't as confident as
           he is, then arresting him now could very well stop the flow of
           cables. But all it takes is one person to keep it going - or just
           dump them all at once if it gets too dicey, and these files have
           been very widely distributed so far. I can't imagine anyone
           reclaiming all the documents now.

           On 12/3/2010 8:54 AM, Michael Wilson wrote:

             yeah also remember there was an article by nytimes i think that
             alot of people on his staff were uncomfortable with the way
             things were playing out, so without him there they may loose
             nerve or come to their better senses

             On 12/3/10 8:48 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

               Yes, like Fred's source pointed out--arrest and trial would
               just be a political circus.=C2=A0 It would probably not
               disrupt wikileaks.=C2=A0 BUT, occasonally a leader makes an
               organization, and maybe no one as capable will be willing to
               fill his shoes.=C2=A0 Or at least, won't be able to get = as
               much pubilicity for wikileaks.=C2=A0 As you also said, it
               could tarnish both Assange's and Wikileaks' repution.=C2=A0
               That coul dserve to discredit and undermine the group.=C2=A0
               Maybe peop= le would be less inclined to leak to it, or the
               public would be less inclined to pay attention--or more
               importantly support wikileaks financially.=C2=A0 Though I
               admit the chance of this causing the public to pay less
               attention is minimal, and in fact would probably increase
               attention on the guy.=C2=A0

               (though personally, getting a rapist off the street is getting
               a rapist off the street.=C2=A0 Also, his mom owns a puppet
               theater...)

               On 12/3/10 8:38 AM, Ben West wrote:

                 What would the overall significance of his arrest be? It's
                 likely that the files are backed up elsewhere and that
                 someone else could give the go-ahead for releasing them
                 (that could very well already be the case) and if his
                 back-ups are anything like Assange, they would welcome the
                 publicity that would come to them by filling his shoes.

                 If the British got custody of him, they could conduct
                 searches or evidence that would support rape charges and, if
                 they happened to find material regarding the leaks, that
                 could lead to new charges. But this has been coming for a
                 while, and if Assange was smart, he would have turned over
                 any really sensitive stuff by now, which would decrease the
                 likelihood of police finding anything juicy.

                 Seems to me that all this really does is tarnish his
                 reputation and make him look like scum. It provides some
                 public distraction from all the leaked documents, but
                 doesn't undermine their impact - just undermines the
                 character of the person who facilitated the leaks.

                 any other thoughts?

                 On 12/3/2010 7:40 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

                   I may have sent this out before- Assange walking out of a
                   CNN interview.

                   http://www.youtube.com/watc= h?v=3DLisa9XTRLb4

                   just shows how far his head is up his ass.=C2= =A0
                   On 12/3/10 7:32 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

                     looks like Assange is in the UK and they might actually
                     roll on him.

                     On 12/3/10 7:31 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

                       *OG source
                       Net closes on Assange: arrest by British police
                       expected in days
                       By Mark Hughes and Jerome Taylor
                       Friday, 3 December 2010
                       http://www.independent.co=
                       .uk/news/uk/home-news/net-closes-on-assange-arrest-by-british-police-expect=
                       ed-in-days-2149805.html

                       Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, is expected to
                       be arrested in the coming days after Swedish
                       prosecutors filed a new warrant with British
                       authorities.

                       The Independent revealed yesterday that a procedural
                       error with the European Arrest Warrant had delayed the
                       arrest of the 39-year-old Australian, who is wanted in
                       Sweden over sexual allegations but has been in England
                       since October.

                       Police in Gothenburg claim they have now submitted a
                       fresh warrant to the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
                       Soca is expected to instruct Scotland Yard to arrest
                       Mr Assange and have him appear before an extradition
                       hearing =E2=80=93 although as of = last night the
                       Metropolitan Police had yet to receive the warrant.

                       Police sources have previously said that they received
                       a letter from Mr Assange's UK-based lawyer, Mark
                       Stephens, containing information about how to contact
                       Mr Assange should they need to.

                       Details of the new arrest warrant came as a last-ditch
                       attempt to have the allegations against Mr Assange
                       dropped failed. Sweden's highest court upheld the
                       arrest order and refused to let him appeal against a
                       lower court's ruling.

                       Last night, Mr Assange's family spoke of their fears
                       for his safety after increasingly shrill statements
                       from American commentators who have called for his
                       assassination. His mother, Christine Assange, said
                       \"the forces that he's challenging are too big\".

                       The arrest warrant filed with Soca states that he was
                       wanted on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and
                       unlawful coercion. But Soca requested a new warrant. A
                       spokeswoman for the Swedish National Police Board told
                       the BBC that the original one had been refused because
                       it listed only the maximum penalty for the most
                       serious crime alleged, rather than for all of the
                       crimes.

                       When the arrest is made, Mr Assange will be taken
                       before an extradition hearing at Westminster
                       magistrates' court. If he refuses to be extradited, a
                       judge will preside over an extradition hearing and
                       will rule whether he should be sent to Sweden or
                       discharged.

                       Last night, Mr Stephens said he would challenge any
                       arrest in British courts. \"The process in this case
                       has been so utterly irregular that the chances of a
                       valid arrest warrant being submitted to me are very
                       small,\" he said. Mr Stephens has accused Swedish
                       prosecutors of launching a witch-hunt against his
                       client, who strongly denies the rape allegations and
                       says he is being smeared because of the expos=C3=A9s
                       published by his website.

                       He has maintained that Swedish prosecutors have yet to
                       provide any evidence against Mr Assange and have
                       ignored his requests to meet with them. He also
                       expressed concerns at the way the UK and Swedish
                       authorities were handling the case.

                       \"I feel like I am sitting in the middle of a surreal
                       Swedish fairytale,\" he said. \"The trolls keep
                       threatening to come on and keep making noises off
                       stage. But at the moment, no appearance from them.\"

                       In an interview with an Australian newspaper, Mr
                       Assange's mother defended her son and lambasted hawks
                       in the US who have called for his death.

                       Ms Assange, who runs a puppet theatre in Noosa, a
                       Queensland beach resort, defended her son's decision
                       to publish thousands of classified US documents on the
                       website. \"He sees what he's doing as doing a good
                       thing in the world =E2=80=93 fighting baddies= , if
                       you like,\" she told Queensland's Courier-Mail.

                       Ms Assange =E2=80=93 who does not even own a computer
                       =E2=80=93 described her son as a her= o of the
                       internet. But she added that she feared he had \"gotten
                       too smart for himself\", saying: \"I'm concerned it's
                       gotten too big and the forces that he's challenging
                       are too big.\" She did not want him \"hunted down and
                       jailed\".

                       On 12/3/10 7:24 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

                         WikiLeaks back online, Assange close to arrest

                         Updated 2 hours 45 minutes ago
                         http://www.abc.net.au=
                         /news/stories/2010/12/03/3084384.htm

                         The WikiLeaks website is back online with a new
                         Swiss address after its previous domain name was
                         killed.

                         The whistleblower website's original domain host,
                         EveryDNS.net, says it terminated its services
                         because Wikileaks had been coming under \"massive\"
                         cyber attacks.

                         The new address - wikileaks.ch - was put online six
                         hours after the original site wikileaks.org was
                         killed.

                         An internet trace of the new domain name suggests
                         that the site itself is still hosted in Sweden and
                         in France.

                         Web users accessing the wikileaks.ch address are
                         directed to a page under the URL
                         http://213.251.145.96= / which gives them access to
                         the former site, including a massive trove of leaked
                         US diplomatic traffic.

                         The WikiLeaks website released more than 250,000
                         secret US diplomatic cables this week, which has
                         left governments around the world scrambling to deal
                         with the fallout.

                         Meanwhile, British media reports Scotland Yard could
                         arrest the site's founder Julian Assange within
                         days.

                         Prosecutors in Sweden want to question Mr Assange
                         over alleged sex crimes involving two women during a
                         visit to Stockholm in August.

                         Mr Assange, who was born in Australia, has not been
                         charged and he denies the allegations.

                         He reportedly avoided arrest this week because
                         Swedish authorities had filled out an Interpol red
                         notice incorrectly.

                         Britain's Independent newspaper reports that police
                         know Mr Assange's whereabouts in England and are
                         expected to arrest him in the coming days.

                         Mr Assange's Stockholm-based lawyer Bjoern Hurtig
                         says he will fight his client's extradition to
                         Sweden in the event of his arrest.

                         \"Together with my British colleague Mark Stephens
                         and international experts, we will fight the
                         extradition warrants,\" he said.

                         A WikiLeaks spokesman says Mr Assange has to remain
                         out of the public eye because he is facing
                         assassination threats following the whistleblowing
                         website's publication of the secret cables.

                         Several US senators have also called for him to be
                         charged with espionage.

                         Senator Dianne Feinstein says the leak is a serious
                         breach of national security and action must be
                         taken.

                         \"We have reviewed the espionage statutes and we
                         believe it qualifies,\" she said.

                         \"That this, allowed to be carried out, incapacitates
                         this nation to carry out business.\"
                         --

                         Sean Noonan

                         Tactical Analyst

                         Office: +1 512-279-9479</= p>

                         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967</= p>

                         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

                         www.stratfor.com

                       --

                       Sean Noonan

                       Tactical Analyst

                       Office: +1 512-279-9479

                       Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

                       Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

                       www.stratfor.com<= /p>

                     --

                     Sean Noonan

                     Tactical Analyst

                     Office: +1 512-279-9479

                     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

                     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.</= p>

                     www.stratfor.com

                   --

                   Sean Noonan

                   Tactical Analyst

                   Office: +1 512-279-9479

                   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

                   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

                   www.stratfor.com

 --=20
 Ben West
 Tactical Analyst
 STRATFOR
 Austin, TX

               --

               Sean Noonan

               Tactical Analyst

               Office: +1 512-279-9479

               Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

               Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

               www.stratfor.com

 --=20
 Michael Wilson
 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@st=
 ratfor.com


 --=20
 Ben West
 Tactical Analyst
 STRATFOR
 Austin, TX

         --

         Sean Noonan

         Tactical Analyst

         Office: +1 512-279-9479

         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

         ww= w.stratfor.com

         --
         Sean Noonan
         Tactical Analyst
         Office: +1 512-279-9479
         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
         www.stratfor.com

         --
         --
         Emre Dogru
         STRATFOR =C2=A0
         Cell: +90.532.465.7514
         Fixed: +1.512.279.9468 =C2=A0
         emre.dogru@stratf= or.com =C2=A0
         www.stratfor.com

 --=20
 Michael Wilson
 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com


     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

   --

   Sean Noonan

   Tactical Analyst

   Office: +1 512-279-9479

   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

   www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-07 14:46:33",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1634202_re-use-me-re-discussion-assange-arrested-.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","","hughes@stratfor.com,marko.papic@stratfor.com,ben.west@stratfor.com",""
1634932,"Fwd: Re: [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] RE: Taking Stock of
 WikiLeaks
","   no evidence. 

   -------- Original Message --------

   Subject: Re: [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] RE: Taking Stock of      
            WikiLeaks                                                         
      Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:28:02 -0600                                   
      From: Captain Michael Mc Cright <mse.captainmccright@gmail.com>         
        To: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>                            

 This information was mentioned during an informal conversation with a
 (retired?) Federal Employee, I am certain he would not like to be
 named, and I suppose his information was
 also of speculative nature.

 On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com> wrote:
 > Dear Sir,
 >
 > Could you share with us where you got that information?  We've noted the
 > possiblity, but have yet to see evidence of sources who have lost their
 > lives.
 >
 > Thank you,
 >
 > Sean Noonan
 >
 > On 12/14/10 9:39 AM, MSE.CaptainMcCright@gmail.com wrote:
 >
 > MSE.CaptainMcCright@gmail.com sent a message using the contact form at
 > https://www.stratfor.com/contact.
 >
 > I understand appoximately 20 people have lost their lives.
 > due to  the sensitive nature of their work and a now public disclosure.
 >
 >
 > --
 >
 > Sean Noonan
 >
 > Tactical Analyst
 >
 > Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
 >
 > www.stratfor.com



 --



 Best,


 Michael Mc Cright
 Maritime Synergy Enterprises,LLC

 MSE.CaptainMcCright@gmail.com
 Home/office 713 468 3393
 Cell 832 640 3393
 Fax 713 264-8640
","2010-12-14 19:28:55",1,"2012-03-01 23:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1634932_fwd-re-analytical-and-intelligence-comments-re-taking-stock.html","sean.noonan@stratfor.com","","responses@stratfor.com",""
1644852,"INSIGHT - Guatemala - Elections in Guatemala
","Source Code: NONE
PUBLICATION: no
SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Head of Governance for Defense Firm in Europe
SOURCE  RELIABILITY:  A
ITEM CREDIBILITY: 4
SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION: Secure Only
SPECIAL HANDLING: Confidential - Please do not disseminate outside the 
Secure list
SOURCE HANDLER: Colby

in the context of the report on the presidential candidates family 
fleeing Peten - I maintain that the Coloms are collaborating with the 
Mexicans. They are from HueHue after all...
","2011-05-20 17:40:25",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1644852_insight-guatemala-elections-in-guatemala-.html","colby.martin@stratfor.com","","secure@stratfor.com",""
1646125,"Re: S3/* - US/MIL - Pentagon Alerts House, Senate Panels to New Classified
 WikiLeaks Release - CALENDAR
","   tactical nuke solves everything.

   On 11/24/2010 1:43 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     adam gadahn=terrorist.  see?

     On 11/24/10 1:41 PM, Michael Wilson wrote:

       no cause normally they just rape goats

       On 11/24/10 1:39 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

         word.  i thought it went without saying rapist=terrorist. 

         On 11/24/10 1:38 PM, Michael Wilson wrote:

           he also a rapist apparently

           fucking swedish terrorists rapists

           On 11/24/10 1:37 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

             ok, now it's time to get rid of Assange, he wants to ruin
             thanksgiving weekend.  That equals terrorist in my book. 

             On 11/24/10 1:34 PM, Michael Wilson wrote:

               Pentagon Alerts House, Senate Panels to New Classified
               WikiLeaks Release
               http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-24/pentagon-warns-house-senate-defense-panels-of-more-wikileaks-documents.html
               By Tony Capaccio - Nov 24, 2010 12:23 PM CT

               The Pentagon warned the U.S. Senate and House Armed Services
               Committees that the website WikiLeaks.org \"intends to release
               several hundred thousand\" classified U.S. State Department
               cables as soon as Nov. 26.

               The documents \"touch on an enormous range of very sensitive
               foreign policy issues,\" Assistant Secretary for Legislative
               Affairs Elizabeth King wrote yesterday in an e-mail to the
               defense panels.

               \"We anticipate that the release could negatively impact U.S.
               foreign relations,\" she wrote, telling committee staff members
               that \"we will brief you once we have a better understanding of
               what documents the WikiLeaks publication contains.\"

               King said The New York Times, the U.K.'s Guardian and Der
               Spiegel of Germany \"are each currently working with WikiLeaks
               to coordinate the release of these State Department
               documents.\"

               These three publications were given advance access to two
               earlier WikiLeaks releases of U.S. military documents: almost
               400,000 related to the Iraq war dated between 2003 and 2010
               and about 75,000 from the same period on the Afghanistan war.
               The Iraq documents were published on Oct. 22 and the
               Afghanistan documents on July 25.

               `Raw Observations'

               When the Iraq documents were released, a Pentagon spokesman,
               Marine Colonel David Lapan, described them as \"raw
               observations from the tactical level of combat operations\" and
               said their publication posed a risk to national security. In
               her e-mail to lawmakers yesterday, King had similar comments
               about the State Department documents.

               \"State Department cables by their nature contain everyday
               analysis and candid assessments that any government engages in
               as part of effective foreign relations,\" she wrote. \"The
               publication of this classified information by WikiLeaks is an
               irresponsible attempt to wreak havoc and destabilize global
               security. It potentially jeopardizes lives.\"

               Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman confirmed that the e-mails
               had been sent to the two committees.

               The Pentagon \"had indications for some time\" that WikiLeaks
               planned to release more documents, Whitman said in an
               interview yesterday. \"As a result, we felt we had a
               responsibility to notify key leaders with oversight
               responsibility of the department like we normally do,\" he
               said.

               State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley said WikiLeaks
               has previously said that it plans to release additional
               classified documents.

               `Due Diligence'

               \"We are doing due diligence,\" Crowley said in an e-mail
               yesterday. The department is \"assessing the possible impact on
               our on-going diplomatic activity and notifying both Congress
               and other governments what may occur.\"

               Crowley told reporters today in a briefing that \"we're in
               touch with our posts around the world,\" which \"have begun the
               process of notifying governments that a release of documents
               is possible in the near future.\"

               The State Department has had similar conversations with
               members of Congress \"to let them know what we are prepared
               for,\" Crowley said.

               \"The kinds of cables that posts send to Washington are
               classified,\" he said. \"They involve discussions we've had with
               government officials, with private citizens. They contain
               analysis, they contain a record of the day-to-day diplomatic
               activity that our personnel undertake.\"

               WikiLeaks receives confidential material that governments and
               business want to keep secret and posts the information on the
               Internet.

             --

             Sean Noonan

             Tactical Analyst

             Office: +1 512-279-9479

             Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

             Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

             www.stratfor.com

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com


         --

         Sean Noonan

         Tactical Analyst

         Office: +1 512-279-9479

         Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

         www.stratfor.com

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com


     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2010-11-24 20:53:12",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1646125_re-s3-us-mil-pentagon-alerts-house-senate-panels-to-new.html","alex.posey@stratfor.com","","marko.papic@stratfor.com,bayless.parsley@stratfor.com,ben.west@stratfor.com,michael.wilson@stratfor.com,sean.noonan@stratfor.com,matthew.powers@stratfor.com",""
1657261,"Re: Assange is off the hook...
","   No I meant the regular people are not mad about it. Assange wanted the
   common folk to rise up against the insidious and evil diplomats. That has
   not happened. In fact, most are defending our diplomats.

   People are mad, but at Assange... not at the U.S. government.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Matthew Gertken\" <matt.gertken@stratfor.com>
   To: analysts@stratfor.com
   Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:40:08 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   Agree, the ego-trip and the anti-Americanism are extremely irritating. But
   not sure it is true about people in the US being mad about the cables --
   Gingrich called it terrorism, the Fox people are have been talking it up
   big time, including WSJ which has contained some more insightful but still
   rather alarmist responses to it. 

   As to the part about going after Russian info. The Chinese press has
   raised the issue of other countries being targeted next, and even went so
   far as to say that the entire scandal is a US conspiracy that will be used
   against other states. The interesting thing about this to me is the fear
   of exposure that has gone to all governments over the implications of this
   type of web dissemination for leaks. Closed govts like china see real
   danger here, as elsewhere with internet evolution. They are familiar with
   how new info dissemination patterns, however innocuous they seem when
   originated in the West, end up posing threats to their control (like
   twitter for instance)

   On 12/5/10 10:23 PM, Marko Papic wrote:

     What a douche.

     And I just want to be clear here... I have no problem with the leaks. I
     think they're great. And I think it may be good on some level to have
     stuff like this come out once in a while. What I can't stand is A) his
     ego trip and B) his clear anti-Americanism. Take the time to read the
     intro to Cablegate when you get the chance. This guy hates America more
     than OBL.

     What I love, however, is how nobody in the U.S. is mad about the cables.
     Hell, I have a better opinion of State Department diplomats now than I
     did before the cables. They actually said a few smart things here and
     there. I actually gave them a tip of my hat.

     I want to see him try to take on the Russians. He'd be going bald in an
     Iceland hospital within days.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:11:39 PM
     Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

     should we change our Stratfor motto now?
     Predictive, insightful intelligence...in a post-Cablegate world.
     On Dec 5, 2010, at 10:05 PM, Marko Papic wrote:

       This guy needs to take pills for his ego:

      He suggested, not for the first time, that he believes his document
      service has had a profound effect on world history: a**I believe
      geopolitics will be separated into pre- and post-Cablegate phases.a**

       Also, I have a question about this part (this is Assange's lawyer
       saying how Wikileaks would release full versions of all files --
       including names of spies, etc. -- if harmed):

      WikiLeaks, Mr. Stephens said, has a**been subject to cyberattacks and
      censorship around the world and they need to protect themselves ... This
      is what they believe to be a thermonuclear device in the information
      age.a**

       Let's say the following scenario happens. Assange is arrested and
       extradicted to Sweden to face rape charges. Wikileaks releases the
       password to the insurance files. Would he not then be directly
       endangering U.S. and other country intelligence professionals? Would
       it not then be possible to prosecute him for espionage? 

       -- 
       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
       Marko Papic
       Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
       STRATFOR
       700 Lavaca Street - 900
       Austin, Texas
       78701 USA
       P: + 1-512-744-4094
       marko.papic@stratfor.com

     --
     Marko Papic

     STRATFOR Analyst
     C: + 1-512-905-3091
     marko.papic@stratfor.com

 --
 Matthew Gertken
 Asia Pacific Analyst
 Office 512.744.4085
 Mobile 512.547.0868
 STRATFOR
 www.stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-06 05:56:29",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1657261_re-assange-is-off-the-hook-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1657727,"Re: Assange is off the hook...
","   Is it possible to revoke some one's citizenship on the grounds of them
   being a total dickhead? 
   I don't care about the other leaks but the ones he has made that
   potentially damage Australian interests upset me. 
   If I thought I could switch this dickhead off without getting done I don't
   think I'd have too much of a problem.
   BTW, close family friend in Sweden who knows the girl that is pressing
   charges tells me that there is absolutely nothing behind it other than
   prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves. My friend
   speaks rather disparagingly about the girl who is claiming molestation. I
   also think the whole rape thing is incorrect for if I remember correctly
   rape was never the charge. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:23:03 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   What a douche.

   And I just want to be clear here... I have no problem with the leaks. I
   think they're great. And I think it may be good on some level to have
   stuff like this come out once in a while. What I can't stand is A) his ego
   trip and B) his clear anti-Americanism. Take the time to read the intro to
   Cablegate when you get the chance. This guy hates America more than OBL.

   What I love, however, is how nobody in the U.S. is mad about the cables.
   Hell, I have a better opinion of State Department diplomats now than I did
   before the cables. They actually said a few smart things here and there. I
   actually gave them a tip of my hat.

   I want to see him try to take on the Russians. He'd be going bald in an
   Iceland hospital within days.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:11:39 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   should we change our Stratfor motto now?
   Predictive, insightful intelligence...in a post-Cablegate world.
   On Dec 5, 2010, at 10:05 PM, Marko Papic wrote:

     This guy needs to take pills for his ego:

      He suggested, not for the first time, that he believes his document
      service has had a profound effect on world history: a**I believe
      geopolitics will be separated into pre- and post-Cablegate phases.a**

     Also, I have a question about this part (this is Assange's lawyer saying
     how Wikileaks would release full versions of all files -- including
     names of spies, etc. -- if harmed):

      WikiLeaks, Mr. Stephens said, has a**been subject to cyberattacks and
      censorship around the world and they need to protect themselves ... This
      is what they believe to be a thermonuclear device in the information
      age.a**

     Let's say the following scenario happens. Assange is arrested and
     extradicted to Sweden to face rape charges. Wikileaks releases the
     password to the insurance files. Would he not then be directly
     endangering U.S. and other country intelligence professionals? Would it
     not then be possible to prosecute him for espionage? 

     -- 
     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
     Marko Papic
     Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
     STRATFOR
     700 Lavaca Street - 900
     Austin, Texas
     78701 USA
     P: + 1-512-744-4094
     marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-06 05:42:16",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1657727_re-assange-is-off-the-hook-.html","chris.farnham@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1660708,"Random Business Idea - Network Security
","   I'm sure this has been thought of before at STRATFOR so excuse the
   redundancy. I was reading a solid Forbes article on Assange and it said
   that a large number of deep pocket corporations were looking into
   leak-focused network security after these Wikileak episodes.

   I was wondering if it was possible for us to get some of that
   \"leak-focused\" gravy train. This is an obvious fear sale, so that's a good
   thing. And we have something to offer that the IT security companies
   don't, mainly our focus on counter-intelligence and surveillance that Fred
   and Stick know better than anyone on the planet.

   We do a lot of good work with all the personal/executive security analysis
   as well. Could we develop some ideas and procedures on the idea of
   \"leak-focused\" network security that focuses on preventing one's own
   employees from leaking sensitive information.

   The point here is that I am sure there are certain procedures and
   precautions that companies should employ that go beyond installing network
   security network to deal with potential leaks. In fact, Im not so sure
   this is an IT problem that requires an IT solution.

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1660708_random-business-idea-network-security-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","analysts@stratfor.com,Don.kuykendall@stratfor.com,grant.perry@stratfor.com",""
1660854,"OBL take -- quick response needed
","I can get access to the materials seized from the OBL safe house. 

What are the top (not 45) questions we want addressed? 
","2011-05-12 22:25:38",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1660854_obl-take-quick-response-needed-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","secure@stratfor.com",""
1661172,"Fwd: Re: US 'to view major cyber attacks as acts of war'
","   from a source on this...

   -------- Original Message --------

   Subject: Re: US 'to view major cyber attacks as acts of war' 
      Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 07:44:52 -0400                     
      From: Veni Markovski <veni@veni.com>                      
        To: Nate Hughes <hughes@stratfor.com>                   

 Nate,
 this is sooo old, that even I (though it's not a good idea to quote
 myself) wrote about it in 1998, in the Bulgarian Military Journal
 magazine (issue 5 for 1998). The article is here:
 http://www.veni.com/pastwork/voenen_zhurnal.html

 That's not a new doctrine, it is very old, there are a number of studies
 (I just re-read my article, and there are references to resolutions of
 the UN, dealing with military responses, etc.), so what comes these days
 as a news, is not a real news. It sounds fancy right now, but I doubt
 that the Pentagon will actually engage the US in real military actions
 (because, if the US responds with conventional weapons, then under the
 current international conventions, it might be considered an aggressor -
 which is not the goal of the US, one could guess).

 Plus, of course, the fact that unlike a conventional war / aggression,
 it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prove state
 engagement.

 Best,
 veni

 On 5/31/2011 18:13, Nate Hughes wrote:
 > Veni,
 >
 > We've been discussing this internally today. What do you make of it?
 > Any word about what the actual public statement is expected to look
 > like? We always appreciate your insight.
 >
 > Hope all is well.
 >
 > Cheers,
 >
 > Nate
 >
 >> *Cyber Combat: Act of War
 >> Pentagon Sets Stage for U.S. to Respond to Computer Sabotage With
 >> Military Force*
 >>     MAY 31, 2011
 >> http://online.wsj.com/article
 >> /SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
 >> By SIOBHAN GORMAN And JULIAN E. BARNES
 >>
 >> WASHINGTON-The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming
 >> from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for
 >> the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using
 >> traditional military force.
 >>
 >> The Pentagon's first formal cyber strategy, unclassified portions of
 >> which are expected to become public next month, represents an early
 >> attempt to grapple with a changing world in which a hacker could pose
 >> as significant a threat to U.S. nuclear reactors, subways or
 >> pipelines as a hostile country's military.
 >>
 >> In part, the Pentagon intends its plan as a warning to potential
 >> adversaries of the consequences of attacking the U.S. in this way.
 >> \"If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down
 >> one of your smokestacks,\" said a military official.
 >>
 >> Recent attacks on the Pentagon's own systems-as well as the
 >> sabotaging of Iran's nuclear program via the Stuxnet computer
 >> worm-have given new urgency to U.S. efforts to develop a more
 >> formalized approach to cyber attacks. A key moment occurred in 2008,
 >> when at least one U.S. military computer system was penetrated. This
 >> weekend Lockheed Martin, a major military contractor, acknowledged
 >> that it had been the victim of an infiltration, while playing down
 >> its impact.
 >>
 >> The report will also spark a debate over a range of sensitive issues
 >> the Pentagon left unaddressed, including whether the U.S. can ever be
 >> certain about an attack's origin, and how to define when computer
 >> sabotage is serious enough to constitute an act of war. These
 >> questions have already been a topic of dispute within the military.
 >>
 >> One idea gaining momentum at the Pentagon is the notion of
 >> \"equivalence.\" If a cyber attack produces the death, damage,
 >> destruction or high-level disruption that a traditional military
 >> attack would cause, then it would be a candidate for a \"use of force\"
 >> consideration, which could merit retaliation.
 >> The War on Cyber Attacks
 >>
 >> Attacks of varying severity have rattled nations in recent years.
 >>
 >> June 2009: First version of Stuxnet virus starts spreading,
 >> eventually sabotaging Iran's nuclear program. Some experts suspect it
 >> was an Israeli attempt, possibly with American help.
 >>
 >> November 2008: A computer virus believed to have originated in Russia
 >> succeeds in penetrating at least one classified U.S. military
 >> computer network.
 >>
 >> August 2008: Online attack on websites of Georgian government
 >> agencies and financial institutions at start of brief war between
 >> Russia and Georgia.
 >>
 >> May 2007: Attack on Estonian banking and government websites occurs
 >> that is similar to the later one in Georgia but has greater impact
 >> because Estonia is more dependent on online banking.
 >>
 >> The Pentagon's document runs about 30 pages in its classified version
 >> and 12 pages in the unclassified one. It concludes that the Laws of
 >> Armed Conflict-derived from various treaties and customs that, over
 >> the years, have come to guide the conduct of war and proportionality
 >> of response-apply in cyberspace as in traditional warfare, according
 >> to three defense officials who have read the document. The document
 >> goes on to describe the Defense Department's dependence on
 >> information technology and why it must forge partnerships with other
 >> nations and private industry to protect infrastructure.
 >>
 >> The strategy will also state the importance of synchronizing U.S.
 >> cyber-war doctrine with that of its allies, and will set out
 >> principles for new security policies. The North Atlantic Treaty
 >> Organization took an initial step last year when it decided that, in
 >> the event of a cyber attack on an ally, it would convene a group to
 >> \"consult together\" on the attacks, but they wouldn't be required to
 >> help each other respond. The group hasn't yet met to confer on a
 >> cyber incident.
 >>
 >> Pentagon officials believe the most-sophisticated computer attacks
 >> require the resources of a government. For instance, the weapons used
 >> in a major technological assault, such as taking down a power grid,
 >> would likely have been developed with state support, Pentagon
 >> officials say.
 >>
 >> The move to formalize the Pentagon's thinking was borne of the
 >> military's realization the U.S. has been slow to build up defenses
 >> against these kinds of attacks, even as civilian and military
 >> infrastructure has grown more dependent on the Internet. The military
 >> established a new command last year, headed by the director of the
 >> National Security Agency, to consolidate military network security
 >> and attack efforts.
 >>
 >> The Pentagon itself was rattled by the 2008 attack, a breach
 >> significant enough that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs briefed
 >> then-President George W. Bush. At the time, Pentagon officials said
 >> they believed the attack originated in Russia, although didn't say
 >> whether they believed the attacks were connected to the government.
 >> Russia has denied involvement.
 >>
 >> The Rules of Armed Conflict that guide traditional wars are derived
 >> from a series of international treaties, such as the Geneva
 >> Conventions, as well as practices that the U.S. and other nations
 >> consider customary international law. But cyber warfare isn't covered
 >> by existing treaties. So military officials say they want to seek a
 >> consensus among allies about how to proceed.
 >>
 >> \"Act of war\" is a political phrase, not a legal term, said Charles
 >> Dunlap, a retired Air Force Major General and professor at Duke
 >> University law school. Gen. Dunlap argues cyber attacks that have a
 >> violent effect are the legal equivalent of armed attacks, or what the
 >> military calls a \"use of force.\"
 >>
 >> \"A cyber attack is governed by basically the same rules as any other
 >> kind of attack if the effects of it are essentially the same,\" Gen.
 >> Dunlap said Monday. The U.S. would need to show that the cyber weapon
 >> used had an effect that was the equivalent of a conventional attack.
 >>
 >> James Lewis, a computer-security specialist at the Center for
 >> Strategic and International Studies who has advised the Obama
 >> administration, said Pentagon officials are currently figuring out
 >> what kind of cyber attack would constitute a use of force. Many
 >> military planners believe the trigger for retaliation should be the
 >> amount of damage-actual or attempted-caused by the attack.
 >>
 >> For instance, if computer sabotage shut down as much commerce as
 >> would a naval blockade, it could be considered an act of war that
 >> justifies retaliation, Mr. Lewis said. Gauges would include \"death,
 >> damage, destruction or a high level of disruption\" he said.
 >>
 >> Culpability, military planners argue in internal Pentagon debates,
 >> depends on the degree to which the attack, or the weapons themselves,
 >> can be linked to a foreign government. That's a tricky prospect at
 >> the best of times.
 >>
 >> The brief 2008 war between Russia and Georgia included a cyber attack
 >> that disrupted the websites of Georgian government agencies and
 >> financial institutions. The damage wasn't permanent but did disrupt
 >> communication early in the war.
 >>
 >> A subsequent NATO study said it was too hard to apply the laws of
 >> armed conflict to that cyber attack because both the perpetrator and
 >> impact were unclear. At the time, Georgia blamed its neighbor,
 >> Russia, which denied any involvement.
 >>
 >> Much also remains unknown about one of the best-known cyber weapons,
 >> the Stuxnet computer virus that sabotaged some of Iran's nuclear
 >> centrifuges. While some experts suspect it was an Israeli attack,
 >> because of coding characteristics, possibly with American assistance,
 >> that hasn't been proven. Iran was the location of only 60% of the
 >> infections, according to a study by the computer security firm
 >> Symantec. Other locations included Indonesia, India, Pakistan and the
 >> U.S.
 >>
 >> Officials from Israel and the U.S. have declined to comment on the
 >> allegations.
 >>
 >> Defense officials refuse to discuss potential cyber adversaries,
 >> although military and intelligence officials say they have identified
 >> previous attacks originating in Russia and China. A 2009
 >> government-sponsored report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security
 >> Review Commission said that China's People's Liberation Army has its
 >> own computer warriors, the equivalent of the American National
 >> Security Agency.
 >>
 >> That's why military planners believe the best way to deter major
 >> attacks is to hold countries that build cyber weapons responsible for
 >> their use. A parallel, outside experts say, is the George W. Bush
 >> administration's policy of holding foreign governments accountable
 >> for harboring terrorist organizations, a policy that led to the U.S.
 >> military campaign to oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.
 >>
 >> Read more:
 >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355623135782718.html#ixzz1NwYdh89v
 >>
 >>
 >> *US 'to view major cyber attacks as acts of war'*
 >>
 >> 31 May 2011 - 13H04
 >>
 >> http://www.france24.com/en/20110531-us-view-major-cyber-attacks-acts-war
 >>
 >>
 >> AFP - The Pentagon has adopted a new strategy that will classify
 >> major cyber attacks as acts of war, paving the way for possible
 >> military retaliation, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.
 >>
 >> The newspaper said the Pentagon plans to unveil its first-ever
 >> strategy regarding cyber warfare next month, in part as a warning to
 >> foes that may try to sabotage the country's electricity grid, subways
 >> or pipelines.
 >>
 >> \"If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down
 >> one of your smokestacks,\" it quoted a military official as saying.
 >>
 >> The newspaper, citing three officials who had seen the document, said
 >> the the strategy would maintain that the existing international rules
 >> of armed conflict -- embodied in treaties and customs -- would apply
 >> in cyberspace.
 >>
 >> It said the Pentagon would likely decide whether to respond
 >> militarily to cyber attacks based on the notion of \"equivalence\" --
 >> whether the attack was comparable in damage to a conventional
 >> military strike.
 >>
 >> Such a decision would also depend on whether the precise source of
 >> the attack could be determined.
 >>
 >> The decision to formalize the rules of cyber war comes after the
 >> Stuxnet attack last year ravaged Iran's nuclear program. That attack
 >> was blamed on the United States and Israel, both of which declined to
 >> comment on it.
 >>
 >> It also follows a major cyber attack on the US military in 2008 that
 >> served as a wake-up call and prompted major changes in how the
 >> Pentagon handles digital threats, including the formation of a new
 >> cyber military command.
 >>
 >> Over the weekend Lockheed Martin, one of the world's largest defense
 >> contractors, said it was investigating the source of a \"significant
 >> and tenacious\" cyber attack against its information network one week ago.
 >>
 >> President Barack Obama was briefed about the attack.
","2011-06-01 15:20:54",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1661172_fwd-re-us-to-view-major-cyber-attacks-as-acts-of-war-.html","hughes@stratfor.com","","sean.noonan@stratfor.com",""
1663327,"Re: Assange is off the hook...
","   should we change our Stratfor motto now?
   Predictive, insightful intelligence...in a post-Cablegate world.
   On Dec 5, 2010, at 10:05 PM, Marko Papic wrote:

     This guy needs to take pills for his ego:

      He suggested, not for the first time, that he believes his document
      service has had a profound effect on world history: *I believe geopolitics
      will be separated into pre- and post-Cablegate phases.*

     Also, I have a question about this part (this is Assange's lawyer saying
     how Wikileaks would release full versions of all files -- including
     names of spies, etc. -- if harmed):

      WikiLeaks, Mr. Stephens said, has *been subject to cyberattacks and
      censorship around the world and they need to protect themselves ... This
      is what they believe to be a thermonuclear device in the information age.*

     Let's say the following scenario happens. Assange is arrested and
     extradicted to Sweden to face rape charges. Wikileaks releases the
     password to the insurance files. Would he not then be directly
     endangering U.S. and other country intelligence professionals? Would it
     not then be possible to prosecute him for espionage? 

     -- 
     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
     Marko Papic
     Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
     STRATFOR
     700 Lavaca Street - 900
     Austin, Texas
     78701 USA
     P: + 1-512-744-4094
     marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-06 05:11:39",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1663327_re-assange-is-off-the-hook-.html","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1666377,"FBI (more) on Body
","   Down & dirty done, He already sleeps with the fish....

   ** Fred's Note:  Although I don't really give a rats ass, it seems to me
   that by dropping the corpse in the ocean, the body will come back to haunt
   us....gotta be violating some sort of obscure heathen religious rule that
   will inflame islam?  I was sleeping thru that class at Langley. 

   The US Govt needs to make body pics available like the MX's do, with OBL's
   pants pulled down, to shout down the lunatics like Alex Jones and Glenn
   Beck. 

    

    
","2011-05-02 15:11:03",1,"2012-02-29 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1666377_fbi-more-on-body-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","secure@stratfor.com",""
1666395,"Re: [Social] Burlesconi orgy - WARNING NUDITY
","   Some of the photos were reportedly taken during a party held at the villa
   for a visiting Czech delegation under the leadership of former Prime
   Minister Mirek Topolanek.

   El Pais said it was unable to confirm whether the picture of the naked man
   it published was that of Mr Topolanek. Mr Berlusconi's lawyer has
   previously said such a photo existed.

   Berlusconi fury over naked photos

   Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi has reacted angrily to the publication in
   Spain of photographs showing topless women and a naked man at his villa.

   He has threatened to sue Spain's El Pais newspaper, calling the photos an
   invasion of privacy.

   The photos - banned in Italy on privacy grounds - were taken from outside
   Mr Berlusconi's villa in Sardinia during a party for a Czech delegation.

   He also faces a probe for using state aircraft to fly guests to Sardinia.

   The prime minister is said to have used Italian aircraft to ferry guests
   to and from Villa Certosa, \"almost every weekend\" between the summer of
   2007 and January of this year, El Pais reports.

   Mr Berlusconi is being investigated for misuse of public funds, and
   confirmed on Thursday that he had been formally placed under investigation
   by prosecutors.

   But he said the probe would be \"swiftly shelved\", insisting he was allowed
   to transport \"people he needs\" for security reasons.

   Mystery man

   Under the headline \"The pictures vetoed by Berlusconi\", El Pais on Friday
   published five photos shot by photographer Antonello Zappadu from outside
   the gates of the Berlusconi villa.

   In the first, the face of the Italian prime minister - recently embroiled
   in a public row over his friendship with an 18-year-old model - can be
   clearly seen. He is accompanied by several women, with the face of one of
   them pixelated by the photographer and the others obscured by an awning.

   a** These are innocent photos, there's no scandal but this is a violation
   of privacy and a scandalous aggression a**
   Silvio Berlusconi Italian Prime Minister

   El Pais said that, to protect their identities, Mr Zappadu had pixelated
   the faces of all those photographed - with the exception of Mr Berlusconi.

   The second photograph shows two topless women, one standing and one lying
   on a sun lounger in the Sardinian sunshine. The woman standing is wearing
   nothing except a skimpy set of \"thong\" bikini briefs.

   But the third picture is the most stark, showing a fully naked man leaning
   over the edge of a swimming pool.

   El Pais said the pictures were examples of the approximately 300 which
   were blocked from publication in Italy at the weekend at Mr Berlusconi's
   request.

   Some of the photos were reportedly taken during a party held at the villa
   for a visiting Czech delegation under the leadership of former Prime
   Minister Mirek Topolanek.

   El Pais said it was unable to confirm whether the picture of the naked man
   it published was that of Mr Topolanek. Mr Berlusconi's lawyer has
   previously said such a photo existed.

   Other photographs reportedly include scenes of parties attended by several
   young women, including the 18-year-old model Noemi Letizia.

   'Nothing spicy'

   Mr Berlusconi has been under pressure to explain his relationship with Ms
   Letizia since his wife, Veronica Lario, said last month she was divorcing
   him after he had attended her 18th birthday party and gave her an
   expensive necklace. He has denied having an affair with her.

   Mr Berlusconi denounced the paparazzi on Friday for violating his privacy
   and \"scandalous aggression\", saying the photographs were entirely
   \"innocent\".

   When asked by Italian state-run Rai radio why there had been several naked
   women at his villa, he replied: \"Do you take a shower dressed?\"

   \"These girls were bathing in a whirlpool bath inside a private home, and
   they were assaulted in a scandalous way.

   \"These are innocent photos, there's no scandal but this is a violation of
   privacy and a scandalous aggression.

   The 72-year-old also repeated that there had been nothing \"spicy\" in his
   relations with Ms Letizia and that he would resign \"the next minute\" if
   proved otherwise.

   His lawyer, Niccolo Ghedini, described the photographs as having
   \"originated in a crime\", adding: \"Who buys them anywhere in the world is
   committing a crime, something which should have been clear to El Pais'
   journalists,\" he said.

   'Petty'

   According to reports, prosecutors in Rome also found several pictures
   taken at Sardinia's Olbia airport before and after the parties.

   They allegedly showed Mr Berlusconi's favourite singer, Mariano Apicella,
   his assistant, and an unidentified woman getting off the prime minister's
   official plane in May last year.

   Prosecutors were forced to open an investigation into Mr Berlusconi's use
   of public assets after a complaint was filed by a consumer association,
   Codacons.

   \"It means nothing. It will be shelved very soon,\" Berlusconi told a Milan
   television station via phone on Thursday.

   \"There is a rule, passed by the prime minister's office, that allows the
   prime minister, when he uses state planes for reasons of security, to take
   with him people he feels he needs at no cost,\" he said.

   However, the newspaper La Stampa has said the regulation did not take
   effect until August, three months after the airport pictures.

   Mr Berlusconi said he had entertained several heads of state and
   government - including Mr Topolanek - at his villa in Sardinia, and had
   \"offered all that I receive from them, including shows with artistes\".

   \"But this is not a burden on the [Italian] state,\" he added.

   The prime minister called the accusations \"petty\" and suggested they had
   been timed to coincide with this week's European Parliament elections.
   Italians are set to vote on Saturday and Sunday.

   Story from BBC NEWS:
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: \"Robin Blackburn\" <blackburn@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Social list\" <social@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Friday, June 5, 2009 2:29:39 PM GMT -05:00 Colombia
   Subject: Re: [Social] Burlesconi orgy - WARNING NUDITY

   I love how they blurred out the faces, but not the penises.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: \"Alex Posey\" <alex.posey@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Social list\" <social@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Friday, June 5, 2009 2:20:53 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
   Subject: [Social] Burlesconi orgy - WARNING NUDITY

   http://www.elpais.com/fotogaleria/imagenes/censuradas/Berlusconi/6527-1/elpgal/

 --
 Alex Posey
 STRATFOR
 alex.posey@stratfor.com
 Office: 512.744.4303
 Cell: 512.351.6645
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1666395_re-social-burlesconi-orgy-warning-nudity-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","social@stratfor.com",""
1675721,"Re: wikileaks and second wave of financial crisis
","   Who is this? Do you have a link?

   I like the way he tries to tie everything together, trying to do that is
   difficult and takes balls, so I salute him. However, I vehemently disagree
   that the state is fundamentally endangered. The EU is fraying, I will give
   him that. But what is coming up to replace it is not some dream of a 
   information based communal anarchy -- or people's court -- that I am sure
   Assange falls asleep to at night. No, in fact the fraying of the sinews
   that used to bind Europe during the Cold War has only allowed nationalism
   to creep back up in an even stronger capacity.

   The problem is that there is still a lot of anti-globalization leftist
   capacity out there, they have not been exhausted by the immediate
   post-9/11 revival of nationalism. People such as Assange (on the fringes)
   and most anti-globalization, ultra-liberal activists/academics (such as
   many of my Canadian friends/profs) feel that because they operate in such
   supranational circles, that the entire world is amenable to such
   intellectual and material existence. The problem is that they have never
   been to Oklahoma, or Afghanistan, and therefore ignore just how
   non-supranational the world really is. Just how local and very much
   national it still is.

   The problem that Assange and these new anti-globalists (anti-statists?)
   have is in replacing nationalism with something coherent, something that
   people can actually touch, feel, smell and pray to. Nationalism came in
   the late 18th early 19th Century to replace religion, in effect, in
   fulfilling a key societal role of binding un-connected people together in
   destiny. Human condition requires such a bond. It is practically universal
   to humans.

   I therefore really don't think that the nation-state, or states, are on
   the defensive. In fact, I think they are on the offensive from the 1990s,
   which were a heaven for the anti-globalists and people such as Assange.
   They are on the retreat.

   Just look at the American public reaction to the Wikileak cables. Nobody
   cares. In fact, most people are proud of the State Department diplomats
   and their ability to do the sort of cogent analysis that the cables
   reveal.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Lena Bell\" <lena.bell@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 9:48:20 PM
   Subject: wikileaks and second wave of financial crisis

   hi marko, this is from a great journo back home... I think it is a
   /very/ interesting piece. You might too. Looks at the second wave of the
   financial crisis (what is happening now) and the latest wikileaks as two
   processes that have come into collision... transforming the relationship
   between states, nations, information and economy.

   (he's prob reporting from europe - could possibly get in touch with him
   if you want)

   Confidential communication

    

   Rundle:
    
   As the WikiLeaks cablegate (WL-CG) revelations continue to roll out, the
   mood of defiance grows in Ireland, with calls for \"default\", for an
   immediate election, or for a citizens assembly coming from ever wider
   quarters. The euro has failed to lift on the market, suggesting that the
   vicious austerity package, has failed to convince. Down the road in
   Trafalgar Square, in the first snow of the year, the students are
   fighting a running battle with the cops, who are trying to kettle them
   around Nelson's column. Interpol has issued a warrant for Julian
   Assange, based on the warrant issued by the Swedish courts on r-pe
   allegations.

   The European Commission is investigating monopoly price fixing practices
   by Google, showing surprising backbone. The spotlight is on China, after
   WL-CG revelations that China had expressed the wish that Korea be
   reunified under Seoul. Now, joining revelations that the Arab world
   wants a strike on Iran, is confirmation that the US knows of official
   Saudi funding links to al-Qaeda, and that the US feels that Pakistan is
   a larger problem than Afghanistan in the propagation of terror.

   President Karzai -- dubbed inept and credulous in cables -- pardoned
   five heroin traffickers who were caught with more than 250 kilograms of
   the stuff en route to the streets of the West. The US began moves to
   charge Assange under the Espionage Act, and the Australian government is
   dutifully looking for something to charge him with too.

   In the House of Commons, the Lib-Dems are in chaos, preparing to abstain
   from a vote hiking up tuition fees after pledging to oppose it before
   the election, with talk of defections from the party. Revelations in the
   WL-CG cables that PMs Brown and Cameron unsuccessfully attempted to make
   a deal to avoid the extradition of Garry McKinnon, an autistic kid who
   hacked into unprotected US security networks, and is facing decades in
   jail under the one-way extradition treaty signed by Blair.

   The revelation has dealt another small but visible blow to the special
   relationship. And the UK \"put in place\" measures to shield the US during
   the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War. According to WL-CG. And Portugal
   has announced, in the past 15 minutes, that its banks may fail.

   Clearly something is under way, a larger shift than can be explained
   merely by the individual occurrences, substantial as they are. Two
   massive processes have come into collision -- the second wave of the
   global financial crisis, breaking strongly in Europe, hitting WikiLeaks'
   rolling wave of information storms, changing the relationship between
   state and power. The transformation of the relationship between four
   elements -- states, nations, information and economy -- has been
   categorical, and even if it recedes in the next few days (which it is
   unlikely to), it will not retreat back to the status quo.

   Something has happened, and it is worth trying to work out what, while
   it is going on.

   Taken at the broadest structural level, one could say this -- a series
   of crucial shifts going back 30 years have now come together in a manner
   that has pitched the global power system into a potential crisis of
   legitimacy. In the early 1980s, global financial transactions --
   hitherto substantially bound within states -- began to be extended
   internationally in real time, due to greater use of information
   technology as \"virtual\" markets, and then the only arena in which
   transactions took place.

   The Reagan and Thatcher victories detached economy from state
   politically, deregulating finance. The transition from the EEC to the
   EC/EU detached state structures from nation, translating them into a
   European super-state. The spread of the internet in the late '80s and
   '90s changed the relationship of information to state, making it
   materially impossible to regulate information flows via old means of
   censorship and control.

   With the global financial economy dictating terms to the superstates in
   the late '90s -- Glass-Steagall was repealed at the same time as the
   euro was launched -- and using the global net as both its medium, and
   domain for creation of new assets, the nations, the ethni rallied around
   increasingly crude expressions of solidarity, increasingly with a
   religious charge.

   The most brutal expression of this was 9/11, and the state responded by
   trying to regain some of the power it had since given up to information
   and economy. By now it was too late. The new culture, subjectivity and
   legitimacy of the cybersphere implicitly undermined the state. WikiLeaks
   is theorisation and operationalisation of that moment, which is an act
   of (collective) thought, and a changed material reality.

   The autonomous processes of a global economy, operating at the
   hyperspeed -- effectively light speed -- of an autonomous global
   information system, eventually came apart, and the debris rained down on
   the nations. The Greeks, the Irish, the Portuguese, maintaining a sense
   of community separated from the state were initially powerless. The
   states -- the EU and the US -- had a relationship only to the economy,
   not to the nation, and promptly bailed out the former at the cost of the
   latter, stealing their life, to pay off debt.

   At this point, with the legitimacy of state and economy at historic
   lows, the three major blows of WikiLeaks have decisively shifted the
   power relationship between information on the one hand, and
   state/economy on the other. From the other end, the nations are
   rebelling. \"Peoples of Europe, rise up\" the Greek Communist Party's
   slogan hung from the Acropolis chimes with WikiLeaks material and
   categorical challenge to the very fabric of state power, as expressed in
   the notion of \"inviolable diplomatic communication\".

   In Europe, oft dismissed as the old dead world, but really the cutting
   edge of the world-island, it will only take one crucial challenge from
   the nations -- a citizens challenge to state power in Ireland, for
   example -- to join the two up, in an equally dynamic fashion. Assange's
   announcement, in Forbes magazine, that WL may do a Wall Street document
   dump next effectively closes the circle.

   You can feel the change in the air, read it in every report. The more
   that the fused political-media-administrative elite try to write it off
   as \"entertaining anecdote\" while at the same time mobilising state power
   to destroy the organisation, the more they reveal that something has
   happened. The old process of leaks -- a document here and there -- only
   served to reinforce the idea that the state had an unquestionable right
   to control information, and that there could be no other way to organise
   society or create law.

   That legitimacy has had a fatal crack put it in. The whole question of
   who should know what has been put into play. There will be reversals,
   but we're used to those. As I may have mentioned, something is happening.

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1675721_re-wikileaks-and-second-wave-of-financial-crisis-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","lena.bell@stratfor.com",""
1681491,"Re: INSIGHT - France's change of heart
","   Can we confirm they are talking about Total? Don't forget the EDF and GDF
   deals with SouthStream, NorthStream respectively... Those deals happened
   pretty close to the Kouchner statement to be coincidence... It's just too
   much at the same time, it reeks of coordination.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: \"Kamran Bokhari\" <bokhari@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Lauren Goodrich\" <goodrich@stratfor.com>
   Cc: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>, \"Aaron Colvin\"
   <aaron.colvin@stratfor.com>, \"Secure List\" <secure@stratfor.com>, \"George
   Friedman\" <gfriedman@stratfor.com>, \"Eugene Chausovsky\"
   <eugene.chausovsky@stratfor.com>, \"Catherine Durbin\"
   <catherine.durbin@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:02:07 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
   Subject: RE: INSIGHT - France's change of heart

   Gotcha.

    

   From: Lauren Goodrich [mailto:goodrich@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:42 AM
   To: Kamran Bokhari
   Cc: 'Reva Bhalla'; 'Aaron Colvin'; 'Secure List'; 'George Friedman';
   'Eugene Chausovsky'; 'Catherine Durbin'
   Subject: Re: INSIGHT - France's change of heart

    

   Monster = Total ... all the energy giants are called monsters in Russia,
   it is a joke that makes no sense

   Kamran Bokhari wrote:

   Monster= Sarko?

    

   From: Lauren Goodrich [mailto:goodrich@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:03 AM
   To: Reva Bhalla
   Cc: Aaron Colvin; Secure List; George Friedman; Eugene Chausovsky;
   Catherine Durbin
   Subject: Re: INSIGHT - France's change of heart

    

   not yet

   Reva Bhalla wrote:

   but do we know what Russia did to pressure Total?

    

   On Sep 22, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Aaron Colvin wrote:

   **decided to keep my entire BB conversation on this, so you could see my
   questions.

   CODE: RU108
   PUBLICATION: yes
   ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in the Moscow
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: senior at Putina**s think-group
   SOURCES LEVEL: high
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 3
   DISSEMINATION: Secure, George, Eugene, Catherine
   SOURCE HANDLER: Lauren
    
   LG: The French seem to have a change of heart today in continuing their
   cheerleading of the sanctions. Know what changed their heart?
    
   RU108: They had some nice conversations this week.
    
   LG: Putin set them straight?
    
   RU108: Yes. And their own monster doesna**t want to be part of the US
   plans.
    
   LG: So Total also pressuring Sarko?
    
   RU108: We had a nice chat with them too. Yachts are good for that sort of
   thing.
    
   LG: Ah, got it. So ya**all got to both Paris and Total.
    
   RU108: It isna**t absolute. They want to be part of this moment. But they
   are not blindly following anymore.
    
   LG: So France is weighing all its options right now.
    
   RU108: Your leader has built a house of cards.
    
    
    
    

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

    

    

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

    

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1681491_re-insight-france-s-change-of-heart-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com,goodrich@stratfor.com,bokhari@stratfor.com,reva.bhalla@stratfor.com,catherine.durbin@stratfor.com,eugene.chausovsky@stratfor.com,aaron.colvin@stratfor.com,secure@stratfor.com",""
1681746,"Re: Assange is off the hook...
","   If it really matters I can look in to it, but from what I am hearing that
   is not the case. 
   That's not to say that my friend is foolproof either. She knows nothing of
   law or politics, she just knows the girl in question and follows the
   news. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:57:59 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   It is about rape. They asked him to use a condom, but he apparently likes
   unprotected sex.

   Sweden has very low threshold for what constitutes rape by the way,
   according to a lawyer friend.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Chris Farnham\" <chris.farnham@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:42:16 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   Is it possible to revoke some one's citizenship on the grounds of them
   being a total dickhead? 
   I don't care about the other leaks but the ones he has made that
   potentially damage Australian interests upset me. 
   If I thought I could switch this dickhead off without getting done I don't
   think I'd have too much of a problem.
   BTW, close family friend in Sweden who knows the girl that is pressing
   charges tells me that there is absolutely nothing behind it other than
   prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves. My friend
   speaks rather disparagingly about the girl who is claiming molestation. I
   also think the whole rape thing is incorrect for if I remember correctly
   rape was never the charge. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 6, 2010 12:23:03 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   What a douche.

   And I just want to be clear here... I have no problem with the leaks. I
   think they're great. And I think it may be good on some level to have
   stuff like this come out once in a while. What I can't stand is A) his ego
   trip and B) his clear anti-Americanism. Take the time to read the intro to
   Cablegate when you get the chance. This guy hates America more than OBL.

   What I love, however, is how nobody in the U.S. is mad about the cables.
   Hell, I have a better opinion of State Department diplomats now than I did
   before the cables. They actually said a few smart things here and there. I
   actually gave them a tip of my hat.

   I want to see him try to take on the Russians. He'd be going bald in an
   Iceland hospital within days.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Sunday, December 5, 2010 10:11:39 PM
   Subject: Re: Assange is off the hook...

   should we change our Stratfor motto now?
   Predictive, insightful intelligence...in a post-Cablegate world.
   On Dec 5, 2010, at 10:05 PM, Marko Papic wrote:

     This guy needs to take pills for his ego:

      He suggested, not for the first time, that he believes his document
      service has had a profound effect on world history: a**I believe
      geopolitics will be separated into pre- and post-Cablegate phases.a**

     Also, I have a question about this part (this is Assange's lawyer saying
     how Wikileaks would release full versions of all files -- including
     names of spies, etc. -- if harmed):

      WikiLeaks, Mr. Stephens said, has a**been subject to cyberattacks and
      censorship around the world and they need to protect themselves ... This
      is what they believe to be a thermonuclear device in the information
      age.a**

     Let's say the following scenario happens. Assange is arrested and
     extradicted to Sweden to face rape charges. Wikileaks releases the
     password to the insurance files. Would he not then be directly
     endangering U.S. and other country intelligence professionals? Would it
     not then be possible to prosecute him for espionage? 

     -- 
     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
     Marko Papic
     Geopol Analyst - Eurasia
     STRATFOR
     700 Lavaca Street - 900
     Austin, Texas
     78701 USA
     P: + 1-512-744-4094
     marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-06 06:01:04",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1681746_re-assange-is-off-the-hook-.html","chris.farnham@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1683919,"Re: INSIGHT BATCH 1
","   Glad you like it!

   Thaere is some cool stuff i there..

   By the way, did you like the story the Belarusssians told me? About
   children and tanks?

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: \"Eugene Chausovsky\" <eugene.chausovsky@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Friday, October 2, 2009 2:02:28 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
   Subject: Re: INSIGHT BATCH 1

   Wow, this is some interesting stuff...the Sanader bit is crazy (though
   expected).

   Marko Papic wrote:

       ------------------------------------------------------------------

     Subject:                                                                 
     INSIGHT - CROATIAN MP RESIGNS                                            
     From:                                                                    
     Marko Papic <marko.papic@stratfor.com>                                   
     Date:                                                                    
     Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:23:53 -0500 (CDT)                                    
     To:                                                                      
     secure <secure@stratfor.com>                                             

     To:                                                                      
     secure <secure@stratfor.com>                                             

     SOURCE CODE: SW501 (SW501 is a very well connected Swedish MEP with
     extremely close links to both the FM Carl Bildt -- his closest ally
     basically -- and the Balkans).
     PUBLICATION: No
     ATTRIBUTION:
     SOURCE RELIABILITY: NA
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: NA
     SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION:
     SPECIAL HANDLING: Secure
     SOURCE HANDLER: Marko

     Source tells us that Ivo Sanader, Croatian PM, resigned because of OC.
     Basically, he had some deal going on with the Ploce port, that is where
     Croatia is supposed to build an LNG terminal. He basically got in good
     with the OC and they told him that he had a choice to either retire from
     politics, or else they'd start killing off his family.

     He followed their orders.

     Note that I have been saying (and writing in analyses) that Croatia is
     absolutely run by OC. The country is stuffed to the brim with OC. The
     problem is that the Yugoslav Civil Wars had a serious effect on the
     entire region, allowing war profiteers to essentially continue running
     OC activities after the war. Serbia also has OC, but it is not as
     powerful as Croatia's because the assassination of Djindjic gave the
     state the impetus to clean most of the really powerful OC elements off.

       ------------------------------------------------------------------

     Subject:                                                                 
     INSIGHT - SLOVENIA/CROATIA: How they made up                             
     From:                                                                    
     Marko Papic <marko.papic@stratfor.com>                                   
     Date:                                                                    
     Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:19:14 -0500 (CDT)                                    
     To:                                                                      
     secure <secure@stratfor.com>                                             

     To:                                                                      
     secure <secure@stratfor.com>                                             

     SOURCE CODE: SW501 (SW501 is a very well connected Swedish MEP with
     extremely close links to both the FM Carl Bildt -- his closest ally
     basically -- and the Balkans).
     PUBLICATION: No
     ATTRIBUTION:
     SOURCE RELIABILITY: NA
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: NA
     SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION:
     SPECIAL HANDLING: Secure
     SOURCE HANDLER: Marko
     According to the Swedish MEP who essentially runs all the Balkan stuff
     for Swedish FM, the key issue for continuing enlargement has been
     separating the Turkish accession process from the rest of the Balkans.
     Bildt has worked VERY hard on this issue, he essentially invited Iceland
     and gave them a green light precisely to illustrate to Germany and
     France that there is Turkish enlargement and then there is OTHER kind of
     enlargement. So the Iceland move was key.

     Once Iceland \"green light\" convinced Germany and France that this is
     possible to do, Berlin put pressure on Slovenia to let Croatia have its
     chance. This was also confirmed by CRO501 (the Croatian Ambassador to
     EU). He also said that Croatia had already offered to Slovenia what
     Zagreb gave them on Monday, so that it really did come down to the
     German pressure.

     Swedish MEP did say that both in Croatia and Macedonia's case, the
     bilateral disputes with Slovenia and Greece (respectively) play a very
     key role in allowing Zagreb and Skoplje to delay. The point is that on
     issues that Croatia and Macedonia don't want to integrate with the EU,
     they can drag their feet and then blame Slovenia and Greece for it. So
     we need to also look at that side of the coin.

     1.       Slovenian acceptance of Croatian accession

     a.       According the Swedish MEP, the key was Swedish ability to
     separate Turkey from Balkan accession. This is viewed as a key stumbling
     block for further expansion of the European Union.

     b.      The green light to Iceland is key part of this strategy. By
     giving an immediate green light to Iceland, Stockholm has been able to
     separate the two issues from one another.

     c.       Pressure was then placed on Slovenia to relent. This is
     confirmed by Croatian Ambassador to the EU, who said that what Zagreb
     gave Slovenia was in part offered in some form or another before.

     d.      But, Swedish MEP countered that at issue here was also stalling
     on part of Zagreb. For both Macedonia and Croatia, the Slovenia/Greece
     issue is just a useful tactic to hold back on required reforms and to
     blame a**thema** for why it is taking so long.

       ------------------------------------------------------------------

     Subject:                                                                 
     INSIGHT - EU: Enlargement Fatigue                                        
     From:                                                                    
     Marko Papic <marko.papic@stratfor.com>                                   
     Date:                                                                    
     Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:23:34 -0500 (CDT)                                    
     To:                                                                      
     secure <secure@stratfor.com>                                             

     To:                                                                      
     secure <secure@stratfor.com>                                             

     SOURCE CODE: SW501 (SW501 is a very well connected Swedish MEP with
     extremely close links to both the FM Carl Bildt -- his closest ally
     basically -- and the Balkans).
     PUBLICATION: No
     ATTRIBUTION:
     SOURCE RELIABILITY: NA
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: NA
     SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION:
     SPECIAL HANDLING: Secure
     SOURCE HANDLER: Marko

     This is insight not just from Swedish MEP in charge of Balkan
     enlargement, but others as well.

     Basically, enlargement is dead. The Swedish Presidency, Carl Bildt
     personally, want to see each of the Balkan states make a step forward
     towards accession (one step minimum) during their presidency. Bildt of
     course had a very important role in the Balkans in the past, so he is a
     key player on this.

     However, Germany and France have totally stopped enlargement. The
     Swedish MEP I talked to fought very hard to have a resolution pass
     before this new parliament that said that rejection of Lisbon would NOT
     endanger enlargement. So that resolution passed. But she said that this
     current parliament would not be able to vote that resolution through
     because it is so right wing.

     The move to the right is very key, because it symbolically illustrates
     that enlargement is one of the things nobody wants to talk about. The
     French and German MEPs (who run the parliament according to most people
     I talked to) are especially opposed. Sweden is hoping for more
     enlargement because they tend to have very good relations with countries
     that they bring into the EU, it is a way to get more allies against
     France and Germany.

       ------------------------------------------------------------------

     Subject:                                                                 
     INSIGHT - SWEDEN: Carl Bildt                                             
     From:                                                                    
     Marko Papic <marko.papic@stratfor.com>                                   
     Date:                                                                    
     Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:29:58 -0500 (CDT)                                    
     To:                                                                      
     secure <secure@stratfor.com>                                             

     To:                                                                      
     secure <secure@stratfor.com>                                             

     SOURCE CODE: SW501 (SW501 is a very well connected Swedish MEP with
     extremely close links to both the FM Carl Bildt -- his closest ally
     basically -- and the Balkans).
     PUBLICATION: No
     ATTRIBUTION:
     SOURCE RELIABILITY: NA
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: NA
     SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION:
     SPECIAL HANDLING: Secure
     SOURCE HANDLER: Marko

     I got a lot of info on Carl Bildt. Our Swedish MEP contact is basically
     his main ally. Bildt is apparently super tall, has photographic memory
     and is very smart. He has a very rocky relationship with the current
     Prime Minister because Reinfeldt was the youth leader of the Moderate
     Party when Bildt was the Prime Minister briefly and the two did not get
     along.

     Bildt believes that Sweden should become a world power. He talks a lot
     about the traditional sphere of Swedish influence in the Baltic (sort of
     like our monograph). From his experiences in the Balkans he has decided
     that he does not like Croats and Albanians.

     He is also very critical of Russia. He called Putin a \"chetnik\" in the
     middle of a meeting with an MEP group. He is essentially a personna non
     grata in Moscow. He is also at odds with Sarkozy because before Sweden
     received its EU Presidency he essentially told the French not to pull
     the same stuff they did with Czech Republic.

     He is very involved with enlargement. Sweden sees enlargement as a way
     to break the German-Frenc stranglehold on the EU. His personal goal is
     to see every Balkan state make one step forward towards accession during
     his premiership.

     I did meet his wife, who is also an MEP in the Parliament. She is
     apparently Italian and does not speak really good Swedish, so she
     couldn't get into the Swedish parliament. Instead, she campaigned for
     the European and got in.
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-29 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1683919_re-insight-batch-1-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","eugene.chausovsky@stratfor.com",""
1687728,"Re: INSIGHT - TURKMENISTAN - new daddy warbucks
","   Yeah, think about it... the financial \"groundwork\" does not in any way
   shape or form easily translate into military framework... You're talking
   about Russia's soft underbelly. If this was Africa, or Latin America, or
   some equally distant place where the Beijing and Moscow were starting off
   on the same level, I would agree with you Reva.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: \"Rodger Baker\" <rbaker@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
   Cc: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>, \"Lauren Goodrich\"
   <goodrich@stratfor.com>, \"Secure List\" <secure@stratfor.com>, \"Eugene
   Chausovsky\" <eugene.chausovsky@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:19:42 AM GMT -05:00 Colombia
   Subject: Re: INSIGHT - TURKMENISTAN - new daddy warbucks

   its gonna take a hell of a paradigm shift for the chinese to deploy troops
   into central asia to take on the russians. 
   On Jun 23, 2009, at 11:16 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

     if China lays the financial groundwork now in Central Asia, what stops
     Beijing from raising that to a military level down the line?   Would it
     necessarily be deterred by the Russians every time?
     On Jun 23, 2009, at 11:15 AM, Marko Papic wrote:

       Again though, Russia feels that it can... on a long enough of a
       timeline... overcome any Chinese influence built up by loans to the
       region. I am not saying that this PoV is going to prove correct for
       Russia, just that this is how Russia thinks. 

       Therefore, how is this latest Chinese loan any different from Chinese
       presence in the region in the past 5 years. Russia has allowed all of
       it to come to pass because they feel they can swoop in and reap the
       benefits at a later point when the investments bear fruits. 

       The question there is whether that is the point when Russia and China
       start having some real beef... whether such conflict is \"built-in\" by
       the Russian attitude right now. But that is an alltogether different
       question. 

       ----- Original Message -----
       From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
       To: \"Rodger Baker\" <rbaker@stratfor.com>
       Cc: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>, \"Lauren Goodrich\"
       <goodrich@stratfor.com>, \"Secure List\" <secure@stratfor.com>, \"Eugene
       Chausovsky\" <eugene.chausovsky@stratfor.com>
       Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:10:37 AM GMT -05:00 Colombia
       Subject: Re: INSIGHT - TURKMENISTAN - new daddy warbucks

       I asked the same thing. Lauren said separate. and turkmenistan isn't
       in SCO
       On Jun 23, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Rodger Baker wrote:

         china was never harmless, though, which is what I was saying. But
         russia would allow China to play around because eventually perhaps
         Russia still has the upper hand in influence, and can gain more
         control over assets in region. That said, China is making numerous
         cash offers - do we know, for example, if this loan is under the
         recent deal China announced at SCO or separate? 
         But what will russia do in return? it aint gonna attack china. it
         did (again) delay its pipeline in the north to China. 
         On Jun 23, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

           it's thrown money, but we're in a slightly different context now.
           The region is getting hammered by the financial crisis and Russia
           has gone out of its way to screw turkmenistan. Then here comes
           China to the rescue.
           that's not very harmless from moscow's PoV, at least in my mind
           On Jun 23, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Rodger Baker wrote:

             Careful?
             China has thrown money after central asia. it is only careful in
             that it doesnt send troops like russia does. 
             On Jun 23, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

               now how does this balance out with Russian security guarantees
               for the Central Asians?
               China has always been very careful in treading on Moscow's
               turf. Isn't this the kind of thing that would escalate
               tensions?
               On Jun 23, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Marko Papic wrote:

                 Nice, the Chinese are a real alternative to BOTH IMF and
                 Russia... plus they have more money essentially than both. 

                 Eugene, take note of this situation... Good to maybe mention
                 in the overall Russian loan piece. 

                 ----- Original Message -----
                 From: \"Lauren Goodrich\" <goodrich@stratfor.com>
                 To: \"Secure List\" <secure@stratfor.com>, \"Eugene Chausovsky\"
                 <eugene.chausovsky@stratfor.com>
                 Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:24:02 AM GMT -05:00 Colombia
                 Subject: INSIGHT - TURKMENISTAN - new daddy warbucks

                 I literally and accidentally ran into the Turkmen energy
                 minister in the swimming pool today while we were both doing
                 lapsa*| we got to talking on the side of the pool. (no code
                 bc he won't be a regular source of course)
                   
                 We started off lightly talking about who is getting projects
                 in the country with him confirming Russia snagging a lot of
                 the infrastructure, but that China is getting some very real
                 projects like South Yolotan field which he says holds 6 tcm
                 (which would make it one of the top 5 deposits in the
                 world). China will pay $3 billion for it. 
                   
                 Then I brought up the continued Russian cut-off of natural
                 gas. He said that hea**ll return to Ashgabat on Thursday
                 where hea**ll be in meetings with Beredimukhammedov and
                 Zubkov(who is pretty much in charge of Russo-Turkmen
                 relations for the Kremlin now). Zubkov is already in
                 Ashgabat and is planning on staying a**as long as needed to
                 get things sorteda** with the Turkmen. 
                   
                 I asked if thing could get sorted with Russia in a hell of a
                 position and not budging yet. He said he did not know but
                 that when he talked to Berdimukhammedov about the Russians
                 that the prez was a**furiousa** at Russiaa**s gall to treat
                 them this way. 
                   
                 I then very uncomfortably brought up the fact that theya**re
                 losing a billion a month and that this could potentially
                 bankrupt their country. He smiled really big and said that
                 they would be just fine. That their situation looked
                 terrible this past month. Turkmen FM Meredov had gone and
                 talked to the Europeans a few weeks ago to see if they had
                 any solutions (meaning IMF loans, etc.), but that they were
                 no help at all. 
                   
                 So Meredov went to China last week striking the Yolotan
                 deal, but also another deal in which China would a**loana**
                 Turkemenistan $3-5 billion. The terms have not been
                 finalized, but China said they could get them the cash
                 quickly, which is what Ashgabat needs.
                 -- 
                 Lauren Goodrich
                 Director of Analysis
                 Senior Eurasia Analyst
                 STRATFOR
                 T: 512.744.4311
                 F: 512.744.4334
                 lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
                 www.stratfor.com
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1687728_re-insight-turkmenistan-new-daddy-warbucks-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","rbaker@stratfor.com,goodrich@stratfor.com,reva.bhalla@stratfor.com,eugene.chausovsky@stratfor.com,secure@stratfor.com",""
1692977,"Re: Source payments
","   Well, I only have his one payment in the bank account. So that makes me
   think that I indeed have made a mistake on the expense report. I can send
   you a new one, to just say September-October?

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: \"Jeff Stevens\" <jeff.stevens@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2009 3:07:29 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
   Subject: RE: Source payments

   When you get back we'll sort it out.  It may just be our descriptions that
   are off.  We don't know at this point.  Thanks. 
    
   Jeff Stevens
   Controller
   STRATFOR
   512-744-4327 Tel
   512-925-5616 Cell
   512-744-4334 Fax
   jeff.stevens@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
    
    

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Marko Papic [mailto:marko.papic@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 3:07 PM
   To: Jeff Stevens
   Subject: Re: Source payments
   Hmmm, that is my mistake then. I thought the last payment was for July.

   I don't have receipts yet because I can't get the money to the source from
   Switzerland. When I get to Austin, I will send him all that we owe him and
   then give you receipts (as always).

   In this case, since I made a mistake on this month and double-counted
   August, it means we have the payment for October done.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: \"Jeff Stevens\" <jeff.stevens@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2009 2:53:05 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
   Subject: Source payments

   We have a $600 charge for August in August and $1,200 in September for
   August & September.  Do you have receipts for these because it appears we
   may have paid August twice.  We always need receipts to verify these by
   the way.
    
   Thanks,
    
   Jeff Stevens
   Controller
   STRATFOR
   512-744-4327 Tel
   512-925-5616 Cell
   512-744-4334 Fax
   jeff.stevens@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
    
    
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-29 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1692977_re-source-payments-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","jeff.stevens@stratfor.com",""
1697484,"Some random thoughts about training
","   Hi Rodger,

   Here are some thoughts on training... just random musing that you said you
   wanted to download from me. These come from my experience both as an
   intern, junior analyst, analyst and as intern coordiator.

   First, I really think it is absolutely crucial that when it comes to
   training, we have senior analyst VERY visibly in charge of the process.
   Sure the administrative work of running the intern program is something
   the junior staff can do, but for training to be successful, there has to
   be sufficient authority behind it.

   Some thoughts on STRATFOR culture:

   1. First on this list is that I think we need to make it clear that saying
   \"I don't know... I need to find out\" is perfectly fine. This is not clear
   to interns. Discussions on the analyst list and in person often devolve
   into analysts doing intellectual gymnastics to prove they have an opinion
   or knowledge on everything going on. This is not productive as it is
   simply impossible to know everything. I have honestly heard analyst say \"I
   don't know\" maybe 5 times in my 2.5 years here. This seeps into interns
   who then think they need to pretend to know everything to get hired. Not
   good.

   2. We can be very mean/aggressive/bitchy at each othe when discussing
   work, especially when we feel we are stepping into each other's AORs
   (which is funny, since G says this is the main downfall of the CIA). This
   has a different effect on different people. For example, it makes some
   recruits think they can act the same way (think Aaron Moore). Second,
   there is this FANTASY (note: F A N T A S Y) that STRATFOR is a place where
   young, brilliant, ambitious people get together, rip each other apart, and
   then come up with an idea/analysis that is the sum of the parts. In
   reality, STRATFOR is divided between those who can yell and those who are
   yelled at. This is VERY clear to everyone on the junior staff. What
   happens is two things: a) junior analysts/interns/recruits decide to fight
   back and incur the wrath of senior staff and labeled as
   inflexible/un-trainable or b) junior analysts/interns/recruits decide that
   it is much easier to not fight back and become \"yes men\". Neither is what
   we want. We need to make it clear that at some point discussion STOPS. We
   are a BUSINESS. We do not have the luxury of academia or government to
   endlessly bullshit. BUT, this does not mean that we need to do it in an
   aggressive manner. And besides, if one needs to raise their voice to
   exercise authority, then they have already lost it (isn't that like a
   Confucius quote or something?)

   3. Analysts have to be more relaxed on being challenged. I think it may be
   good to start building some sort of a routinized criticism sessions, if
   for nothing else than to develop a culture of being able to take
   criticism. We are not going to be able to criticize ourselves (truly) if
   we don't accept criticism from others. So maybe some sort of a Maoist
   session where one analyst's analysis is destroyed could be a good
   exercise. I don't know...

   4. I think we are getting sloppy and we are starting to lose our drive to
   research things in depth. We are simply covering too much with too few
   people and our daily output, considering staffing, is making it impossible
   to be more thorough. How do we fix this? We talked about this... I don't
   know. But we are NOT doing a good job balancing daily \"for today\" with
   long term work.

   Here's an idea to resolve this problem. One of the qualities that ALL of
   our analysts should have (even regional) is situational awareness of the
   entire globe. That means that it would do good for Kamran, Matt or shit
   even YOU to write an analysis on Zimbabwe. Plus its kind of fun. PLUS, it
   gets different analysts working with different analysts (so for example
   instead of you working with me on ONE analysis in 2.5 years, you get to
   see my work on more opportunities).

   So think if Mark had to tell you what he wanted written for today's Zimb
   piece and what he wanted researched. Or if he told me. Or if I told Mark
   what I wanted for a Romania analysis. Now you have different analysts
   helping out on for today tasks on different AORs. Makes them much more
   involved... They start making connections on how different AORs operate,
   unearthing patterns that could help them in forecasting their own AOR

   Why am I suggesting this?

   Because maybe we can assign \"long-term project\" days. So an analyst would
   work intensely on FOR TODAY for 3 or 4 days of the week and the other 1-2
   days he/she would be either working on monographs or doing that
   \"INTELLIGENCE\" work you were telling me about this afternoon... you know,
   when you can actually mull about long-term changes and trends and pour
   over data to unearth anomalies. If I can just walk Mark or Karen through
   the Romania analysis in the am, and then \"red team\" it by making sure it
   is up to my liking, I can concentrate the rest of the day on long term
   stuff and not worry about putting out fires. And then next day I help
   Karen or Mark with their AOR, giving THEM time to do long term and
   expanding my horizons.

   Ok, I just bored you to death.
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1697484_some-random-thoughts-about-training-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","rodger.baker@stratfor.com",""
1705733,"RE: MX1
","   Of course.  He will be protected. 
    

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Marko Papic [mailto:marko.papic@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 6:17 PM
   To: Fred Burton
   Subject: MX1
   Hey Fred,

   I was talking to MX1 and he said that it was great to see you working in
   DPS.

   I mentioned to him that Stephen, who MX1 met in Austin, also now works for
   DPS. He was a little concerned about that and asked if Stratfor has all
   its employees sign confidentiality agreements. He said that it would make
   his work liaison-ing with DPS difficult if his relationship with Stratfor
   was known outside of the CT group in Stratfor.

   Do you think you could perhaps mention that to Stephen one more time. I
   know Stephen knows how to handle himself, but in the context of his
   official work for the Mexican government, MX1 could come across Stephen's
   office in the future and it would be a  problem if the relationship
   between MX1-Stratfor was revealed.

   Looking forward to seeing you in a few weeks by the way. I've had an
   interesting time in Europe. My final stop, Bosnia, is on Monday.

   Cheers,

   Marko
","2009-10-23 01:38:52",1,"2012-03-03 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1705733_re-mx1-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","marko.papic@stratfor.com",""
1708759,"Re: [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] RE: Taking Stock of WikiLeaks
","   Feel free but I think that it was in a seance while using peyote.
   On 12/14/10 10:44 , Sean Noonan wrote:

     anybody mind if I respond to this guy and ask him about his source(s)?

     On 12/14/10 9:39 AM, MSE.CaptainMcCright@gmail.com wrote:

       MSE.CaptainMcCright@gmail.com sent a message using the contact form at
       https://www.stratfor.com/contact.

       I understand appoximately 20 people have lost their lives.
       due to  the sensitive nature of their work and a now public
       disclosure.

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

   --

   George Friedman

   Founder and CEO

   Stratfor

   700 Lavaca Street

   Suite 900

   Austin, Texas 78701

   Phone  512-744-4319

   Fax  512-744-4334
","2010-12-14 17:47:20",1,"2012-03-01 23:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1708759_re-analytical-and-intelligence-comments-re-taking-stock-of.html","gfriedman@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1710497,"Re: [Eurasia] [OS] G3 - FRANCE/SWEDEN/TURKEY/EU - Sarkozy cancels
 Sweden visit over	Turkey
","   This is definitely about attention grabbing... Sarko is so predictable.
   This is awesome!!

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: \"Eugene Chausovsky\" <eugene.chausovsky@stratfor.com>
   To: \"EurAsia AOR\" <eurasia@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 8:50:33 AM GMT -05:00 Colombia
   Subject: Re: [Eurasia] [OS] G3 - FRANCE/SWEDEN/TURKEY/EU - Sarkozy cancels
   Sweden visit over        Turkey

   Looks like Sarko is already trying to grab the limelight again before
   Sweden takes over...any significant implications of a Sweden-France clash
   over Turkey for the rest of the EU, energy deals, etc?

   Chris Farnham wrote:

     Sarkozy cancels Sweden visit over Turkey
     http://euobserver.com/9/28208
     ELITSA VUCHEVA

     Today @ 09:12 CET

     French President Nicolas Sarkozy has cancelled a visit to Sweden
     scheduled for next Tuesday (2 June) in order to avoid a clash on the
     question of Turkey's EU membership just days before the European
     elections and a month before Stockholm takes over the EU's rotating
     presidency.

     Officially, Mr Sarkozy's office said the trip was cancelled \"for agenda
     reasons.\"

     \"We should avoid halting EU enlargement,\" said Swedish foreign minister
     Carl Bildt

     But the French president, who is an outspoken opponent of Turkey's entry
     to the European Union, did not want to highlight the strong divergence
     of views on this topic with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, Le
     Monde reported on Thursday (28 May).

     Sweden favours further EU enlargement, including to Turkey. On Monday
     this week, Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt told Le Figaro newspaper
     that the EU had \"a strategic interest\" in Turkey's EU integration and
     warned against \"closing the door\" to Ankara.

     \"If we judge Cyprus to be in Europe, although it is as in island along
     Syria's shores, it is hard not to consider that Turkey is in Europe,\" Mr
     Bildt said, referring to Mr Sarkozy's repeated statements that Turkey is
     not a European country and does not belong to Europe.

     Additionally, Mr Sarkozy probably did not appreciate that Mr Bildt
     expressed views different from his on the economy, French newspapers
     comment.

     In the Figaro interview, Mr Bildt said: \"My vision of Europe is not as
     defensive as I observe it with other people.\"

     In a reference to aid plans for the car industry - very much promoted by
     Mr Sarkozy - the Swedish top diplomat said that for him, \"spending
     taxpayers' money to subsidise existing structures is a very good way of
     wasting money.\"

     The French president's trip to Sweden was cancelled the day after the
     interview was published.

     \"Nicolas Sarkozy cancelled his visit because of the Carl Bildt
     interview,\" one minister told Le Monde.
     \"The president wanted to avoid a clash on Turkey and did not want that
     his visit to Sweden interferes with the elections [five days later].
     There are [also] too many dossiers that are too important to prepare
     with the Swedish EU presidency to spoil that visit,\" another official
     told the paper.
     The upcoming Swedish EU presidency is the real reason behind the
     cancellation, rather than the context of the European elections,
     according to Le Figaro journalist Pierre Rousseiln.

     \"Nicolas Sarkozy does not fear confrontation,\" he wrote in his blog,
     adding that defending his position in Sweden could even have been
     beneficial for Mr Sarkozy ahead of next Sunday's vote.

     If he refused to go to Stockholm, he did it to avoid a clash just a
     month before the Swedish EU presidency starts and it is a sign that Mr
     Sarkozy is expecting a number of difficulties during Sweden's six-month
     term at the head of the bloc, Mr Rousselin wrote.

     The French president's office is currently working on rescheduling the
     visit for another date before the end of June.

     --

     Chris Farnham
     Beijing Correspondent , STRATFOR
     China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
     Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
     www.stratfor.com

 --
 Eugene Chausovsky
 STRATFOR
 C: 512-914-7896
 eugene.chausovsky@stratfor.com
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-29 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1710497_re-eurasia-os-g3-france-sweden-turkey-eu-sarkozy-cancels.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","eurasia@stratfor.com",""
1714389,"Russian energy interests in the Balkans
","","2011-01-31 22:30:23",1,"2012-03-02 10:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1714389_russian-energy-interests-in-the-balkans-.html","marko.primorac@stratfor.com","","marko.papic@stratfor.com","attach/126/126434_Russian Energy Investments in Balkans.docx"
1717183,"INSIGHT - BULGARIA/RUSSIA - relations & energy
","   CODE: RU106
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Gazprom
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Head of Gazprom (dis)Information
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: C
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 3
   DISTRIBUTION: Analysts, briefers
   HANDLER: Lauren

   Bulgaria is Russia's Trojan Horse in the EU. The relationship between
   Russia and Bulgaria may be occasionally cold, but they will always be
   Slavic brothers at the end of the day.
    
   There are two reasons for the recent cooling of relations was that
   Bulgaria.
   1)        First is that Bulgaria was the worst hit country during the 2009
   natural gas cut off.
   2)      Second is the change in government. Stanishev had been a good
   little brother, since he is from Ukraine and spoke perfect Russian.
   Borisov is not as interested in Russia as a big brother.
    
   This has affected relations in 3 areas:
   1)        first, Bulgaria is pulling out of the Orthodox Pipeline (We're
   calling Bourgas-Alexandroupolis the \"Orthodox Pipeline\" now. Since it
   involves so many Slavic Orthodox countries.)
   2)      second, Bulgaria is not continuing the Belene project. This is not
   so much about the cooling of relations as financial reasons on the
   Bulgarian side. The Germans were suppose to pay for the plant, but
   withdrew and since then Sofia cannot find the funds for the plant. Moscow
   has offered to pay for Sofia's portion, but the Bulgarians do not want it
   to be Russian-owned.
   3)       Lastly is South Stream. This last issue is the one that is very
   interesting. First Bulgaria said that the terms for South Stream were
   unacceptable. But it has now changed its mind for 3 reasons.
         a.       Sofia's attention to South Stream snapped back when Russia
   turned to Romania instead. Russia has other options.
         b.      Bulgaria does not want to burn every bridge with its former
   brother. This is one that is best out of the three projects in their eyes.
         c.       Bulgaria is now striking a larger deal with Russia on
   natural gas. This next month Russia and Bulgaria economic and energy
   ministers will continue and     solidify energy talks. Thus far the plan
   is for Bulgaria to formally sign the remainder of the documents from
   mid-July on committing to South Stream. In return Bulgaria will receive a
   large natural gas price cut.
    
   The bilateral deal on the natural gas price cut is that Bulgaria's
   Bulgargaz will directly purchase gas from Gazprom instead of the three
   middlemen (Overgas, Wintershall and Gazpromexport). This will lower the
   price from the $576 per tcm to $339 per tcm. Negotiations on this
   bilateral deal will begin August 10.
    

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Watch Officer, STRAFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com
","2010-07-26 19:02:48",1,"2012-03-02 10:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1717183_insight-bulgaria-russia-relations-and-energy-.html","michael.wilson@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com,briefers@stratfor.com",""
1717932,"Re: INSIGHT - RUSSIA - Latest in Clan Wars (protect for now)
","   Wow... Putin is letting it go both ways then.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: \"Lauren Goodrich\" <goodrich@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Secure List\" <secure@stratfor.com>, \"George Friedman\"
   <gfriedman@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 1:01:49 PM GMT -06:00 Central America
   Subject: INSIGHT - RUSSIA - Latest in Clan Wars (protect for now)

   CODE: RU101
   PUBLICATION:  checking
   ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in the Kremlin
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  The Prosecutor General
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1
   HANDLER: Lauren
    
   The past few weeks have been particularly difficult between the clans.
    
   Surkov/Medvedev tandem has purge a slew of people from
   Sechin/Patrusheva**s clan. 21 officials from the Interior Ministry, 5 FSB
   Generals in the Defense Ministry and Moscowa**s police chief Pronin have
   all been purged.
    
   In response, Sechin/Patrusheva**s group has decided that they need to come
   after me and my groupa**the Prosecutor Generala**s office. They have used
   their foot soldier, Alexander Bastrykin, in the Investigative Committee to
   launch a purge within my office. Bastrykin vows to not be owned by Sechin,
   though I have never believed this and now my proof is here. Thus far they
   have gotten fired the head of my Investigative Committee, Anatoli
   Bagmeta**who was critical to aiding me in my work inside our
   investigations against the Siloviki. Bastrykin is planning on firing the
   heads of the regional Investigative Committees as well, 12 in all.
    
   The problem is that Sechin/Patrushev want to come after me (Chaika), but
   Surkov will not allow such a move. What I have been told is that Putin has
   laid ground rules on how far each clan can go to  purge the other. For
   example, Surkova**s request to have Interior Minister Nurgaliyev sacked
   was quickly nixed by Putin. Now that Sechina**s move to get me fired has
   also been shielded from above. So instead there are a lot of purges
   happening on the second tier, like these in the past few weeks.
   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1717932_re-insight-russia-latest-in-clan-wars-protect-for-now-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","goodrich@stratfor.com,secure@stratfor.com",""
1720327,"New-tern Info...
","","2009-05-11 22:15:18",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1720327_new-tern-info-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","marko.papic@stratfor.com,robert.reinfrank@stratfor.com","attach/126/126613_FSU sweep list.doc
attach/126/126614_Team Eurasia 090302.xls
attach/126/126615_READING LIST.doc
attach/126/126616_GV Client List for Team.doc"
1727162,"Re: INSIGHT - SWEDEN: Carl Bildt
","   Hey Aaric,

   That sounds good... That was just two days (really day and a half) in
   Strasbourg as well. 

   I am back on November 6th. So let's plan to sit down and mull after that.

   Cheers,

   Marko

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: \"Aaric Eisenstein\" <eisenstein@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 9:29:26 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
   Subject: RE: INSIGHT - SWEDEN: Carl Bildt

   If you're up at 4, you're insane.  I'll make the introductions when you're
   back.  When's that?
    
   You're getting some amazing shit over there, just amazing.  I want to sit
   down with you when you get back and plot and scheme on how we can turn it
   into cash.
    
   Later,
    
   AA
    
   Aaric S. Eisenstein
   SVP Publishing
   STRATFOR
   512-744-4308
   512-744-4334 fax
   aaric.eisenstein@stratfor.com
   Follow us on http://Twitter.com/stratfor
    

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Marko Papic [mailto:marko.papic@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:58 PM
   To: eisenstein@stratfor.com
   Subject: Re: INSIGHT - SWEDEN: Carl Bildt
   But I don't know who Grant Perry is... or do I? It's 4am here so I may be
   completely insane.

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: eisenstein@stratfor.com
   To: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 8:56:11 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
   Subject: Re: INSIGHT - SWEDEN: Carl Bildt

   Believe grant Perry knows Bildt. Check with Grant if you need

   Sent from my iPhone
   On Sep 17, 2009, at 7:30 PM, Marko Papic <marko.papic@stratfor.com> wrote:

     SOURCE CODE: SW501 (SW501 is a very well connected Swedish MEP with
     extremely close links to both the FM Carl Bildt -- his closest ally
     basically -- and the Balkans).
     PUBLICATION: No
     ATTRIBUTION:
     SOURCE RELIABILITY: NA
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: NA
     SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION:
     SPECIAL HANDLING: Secure
     SOURCE HANDLER: Marko

     I got a lot of info on Carl Bildt. Our Swedish MEP contact is basically
     his main ally. Bildt is apparently super tall, has photographic memory
     and is very smart. He has a very rocky relationship with the current
     Prime Minister because Reinfeldt was the youth leader of the Moderate
     Party when Bildt was the Prime Minister briefly and the two did not get
     along.

     Bildt believes that Sweden should become a world power. He talks a lot
     about the traditional sphere of Swedish influence in the Baltic (sort of
     like our monograph). From his experiences in the Balkans he has decided
     that he does not like Croats and Albanians.

     He is also very critical of Russia. He called Putin a \"chetnik\" in the
     middle of a meeting with an MEP group. He is essentially a personna non
     grata in Moscow. He is also at odds with Sarkozy because before Sweden
     received its EU Presidency he essentially told the French not to pull
     the same stuff they did with Czech Republic.

     He is very involved with enlargement. Sweden sees enlargement as a way
     to break the German-Frenc stranglehold on the EU. His personal goal is
     to see every Balkan state make one step forward towards accession during
     his premiership.

     I did meet his wife, who is also an MEP in the Parliament. She is
     apparently Italian and does not speak really good Swedish, so she
     couldn't get into the Swedish parliament. Instead, she campaigned for
     the European and got in.
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1727162_re-insight-sweden-carl-bildt-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","eisenstein@stratfor.com",""
1739377,"[Eurasia] [Fwd: INSIGHT - RUSSIA - Iskander Missile]
","   Just to remind everyone about the Iskander info from December.

   -------- Original Message --------

   Subject: INSIGHT - RUSSIA - Iskander Missile                               
      Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:33:19 -0600                                   
      From: Lauren Goodrich <goodrich@stratfor.com>                           
        To: 'Secure List' <secure@stratfor.com>, George Friedman              
            <gfriedman@stratfor.com>                                          

   CODE: RU153
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources Moscow
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Russia's Defense Council (group of defense
   specialists from Ministry, Militaries & GRU) that report to Puty
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: 2
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: high
   HANDLER: Lauren

   The Iskandar is of great use to Russia and much focus. It has been highly
   successful both technologically and strategically. They consider the
   Iskander the most effective and deadly nonstrategic (and even perhaps
   strategic) ballistic missile in existence.
    
   It is better than the Oka, which worried the US so much because of its
   accuracy. But the Iskander is considered so much better. INF wiped out the
   Oka, but the Iskander falls underneath the INF-for now. The Oka was/is to
   replace the Elbrus, Tochka and Tockka-U and now the Iskandar replaces them
   both, but with a new and more modern highly accurate propellant of a
   short-range ballistic missile with a range of 500 km. Its accuracy is now
   averaging of 10 meters or better. Its high velocity allows the missile to
   penetrate antimissile defenses. It can fly low and make evasive maneuvers
   in order to prevent interception by surface air missiles. It has
   conventional warhead options and more recently Russia has been toying with
   adding a nuclear warhead (but not officially).
    
   There are two types of Iskanders. The 9K723 Iskander-M that is now
   deployed in Russia and the 9K720 Iskander-E that is for export. The
   former's range is of 450-500 km and the latter is of 280 km because of the
   MTCR limits.
    
   [he went on about the delivery vehicles with a ton of technical jargon I
   am  too tired to translate, but will if you're interested].
    
   Each Iskander operational battalions has two TEL reload vehicles, two
   command and control vehicles and a crew. Russia has created missile
   brigades for each system-this is new for Russia. (Each brigade ideally-in
   the future-- will have 3 missile battalions, with 12 TELs and 12
   transporter-load vehicles with a total of 48 ballistic missiles).
    
   The state tests for Iskander were done in 2004 and the batallions were
   formed and put into service by the end of 2007.
    
   Now the developers of the Iskander system are toying with further
   development of its warfighting capabilities, including the integration of
   the high-precision R-500 subsonic cruise missile. The R-500 is a more
   conventional version of the old Soviet 3M10 long-range cruise missile with
   a range of 2600 km, which was put on the Russian nuclear attack subs.
   These were eliminated also under INF-for now. This testing will be wrapped
   up by the end of 2009, since it has been successful thus far. After that
   it is a political decision in whether to put it into service, though 6
   missles with the R-500s are already ready to be implemented. 
    
   So at present everything that Russia has \"implemented\" falls under INF-but
   that seems to be a short time issue at present, which is why Russia is
   playing with the options.
    
   By the time 2015 rolls around, 60 Iskanders will have been produced and
   implemented.
    
   There are already 5 Iskander Missile Brigades in service and stationed
   across Russia.
   26th - Luga, near St. Petersburg (in training and implementation stage)
   92nd - in Kamenka, near Penza/Volga-Urals (done with training and
   implementation)
   103rd - in Ulan-Ude, in Siberia (in training and implementation stage)
   107th in Semistochni, near Birobidzhan/Far East (done with training and
   almost done with implementation)
   114th in Znamensk, near Astrakhan in the Northern Caucasus. (in training
   and implementation stage)
    
   These are the brigades that did have the Tochka and Tochka-U. The 92nd and
   107th were the first to get it and the 26th, 103rd and 114th are still
   currently being implemented and trained but should be completed by the end
   of 2011.
    
   Note that this does not include a Brigade in Kaliningrad, the two from
   Moscow district or the other Northern Caucasus brigades. These will have
   to wait until after the first 5 brigades are ready, trained and
   implemented. Also, the Kaliningrad decision is highly political, since it
   could reach into Germany or take out any American bmd system. If the R-500
   system were ever implemented, it would be able to take out targets all
   across Europe with highly precise accuracy-again, a political decision.
    
   The 630th Iskander Brigade - which trains the other Brigades - took part
   in the Russia-Georgia war. [LG: he wouldn't go further into how the
   Iskander was or the other missiles the Brigade uses were used in the
   war..... but I had heard of Iskanders possibly used against Georgian tank
   battalions in Gori, but never heard confirmation of such.... This seems
   like partial confirmation to me]. 
   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-08-11 20:11:55",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1739377_-eurasia-fwd-insight-russia-iskander-missile-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","mailto:eurasia@stratfor.com","scott.stewart@stratfor.com,eurasia@stratfor.com,military@stratfor.com",""
1762408,"Re: [Eurasia] B3 - GREECE/ ECON - Greece says budget cuts will pass,
 but power	cuts threaten
","   But a meeting they have held every Sunday since their protest began drew
   far fewer people than previously on Sunday.

   I think the unions are far more interesting to me, especially as they
   start fighting against privatization plans (so rolling blackout thing is
   more serious than these \"indignant\" yahoos).

   This goes back to what Marc/Preisler were talking about in terms of
   Spanish anti-austerity protesters being pro-EU. These guys have no real
   political alternative. This is what we articulated in the annual. Their
   only \"alternative\" is to quit the euro, but they don't really want to do
   that.

   It is only in the core that there is a true political alternative:
   Euroskepticism.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Benjamin Preisler\" <ben.preisler@stratfor.com>
   To: \"alerts\" <alerts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 8:39:09 AM
   Subject: B3 - GREECE/ ECON - Greece says budget cuts will pass, but
   power        cuts threaten

   Greece says budget cuts will pass, but power cuts threaten

   20 June 2011, 14:24 CET

   http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/greece-eurozone-imf.aqm/

   (ATHENS) - Greece will get new tough budget action through parliament in a
   week's time to obtain vital funding, the government said on Monday despite
   power cuts and a general strike threat.

   Ahead of another visit by Greece's mission of creditors, the government
   also faces a vote of confidence called by the prime minister to ensure
   support in parliament for yet deeper measures to avert bankruptcy in the
   face of distress and anger among the Greek people.

   A finance ministry source told AFP that the government was \"confident
   about the adoption of this plan by parliament,\" where the Socialist
   government holds 155 seats out of 300 in a vote on June 28.

   And an EU source in Athens said representatives from the European Union,
   the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank, which last
   year bailed out Greece, would be visiting the Greek capital this week.

   Members of the tripartite mission, also known as the 'troika' in Greece,
   will be in Athens on Tuesday and Wednesday for talks with newly-appointed
   Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos, the EU source told AFP.

   The finance ministry has indicated that the troika mission chiefs who have
   held quarterly audits of Greek finances will be heading the latest visit.

   Eurozone finance ministers said overnight that the next slice of 12
   billion euros ($17 billion) of an EU-IMF rescue package agreed last year
   would be released early in July to avoid default on current spending.

   But this slice of a total first loan of 110 billion euros would be
   released strictly on condition that Greece adopts the latest round of
   highly unpopular measures.

   Meanwhile on Monday Prime Minister George Papandreou, who shuffled his
   government on Friday as part of a new drive to tackle the debt, faced
   further difficult talks in Brussels on a big second rescue which Greece
   needs to have a hope of avoiding default on its debt in the months and
   years ahead.

   For the European Union, the issue of a second rescue raises much wider
   problems of how to ensure that banks, insurance companies and investment
   funds holding Greek debt bonds bear part of the cost.

   But they want to achieve this without provoking mayhem on financial
   markets and putting the eurozone at increased risk.

   The European Central Bank has warned EU policymakers that if the terms of
   a redrawing of Greek debt repayments is badly received on financial
   markets, the central bank may cease providing lifeline funding to the
   Greek banking system.

   Papandreou, facing opposition from some of his own members of parliament
   and lacking support from the opposition right-wing parties, called on
   Sunday a vote of confidence to bring his own supporters into line. The
   vote is expected during Tuesday night.

   Greek observers say that Papandreou should win both the confidence vote
   and the vote on the new budget measures, but could still face opposition
   politically and on the streets.

   The main Greek trade union organisation GSEE has called a general strike
   lasting 48 hours on a day to be chosen depending on events in parliament.

   The electricity generating company DEI has warned that the country could
   be hit by power cuts.

   This is because on Monday the union representing its workforce called for
   a rolling strike against a condition by the EU and International Monetary
   Fund that the business be privatised by next year as part of a wave of
   privatisations to reduce debt.

   This powerful union has long been courted by the governing Socialist
   Party. But a union official Costas Koutsodimas told radio Flash that the
   Greek people supported the employees in fighting the \"knock-down sale of
   the flagship in the public sector.\"

   The groups of so-called \"indignant\" people protesting against cutbacks and
   reforms by the government, who have been camping in Syntagma square in
   central Athens since May 24 said they would hold a new demonstration late
   on Tuesday during the vote of confidence.

   But a meeting they have held every Sunday since their protest began drew
   far fewer people than previously on Sunday.

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19

   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2011-06-20 15:58:25",1,"2011-03-05 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1762408_re-eurasia-b3-greece-econ-greece-says-budget-cuts-will-pass.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:eurasia@stratfor.com","eurasia@stratfor.com",""
1767718,"Re: [Eurasia] G3 - ITALY - Berlusconi says EconMin Tremonti primary
 candidate to	be successor
","   This would actually be very good news. Tremonti, like Draghi, is that
   typical Lombardian who knows how to run shit. When you think Italian --
   because we are in the US -- most of us don't think efficiency. But
   Northern Italians are probably the most productive people on the planet.
   Tremonti is from Sondrio, which is practically Switzerland how north it
   is. Tremonti is also strongly fiscally conservative, if he became the PM
   the markets would fucking go nuts. He could by his very personna probably
   shave off a full percent of Italian bond yields.

   Draghi, by the way, is from Rome, so he is less \"Lombardian\". So I
   actually have less confidence in Draghi than Tremonti.

   Either way, the problem for Tremonti is that he does not really have his
   own base. He is sort of a Lega Norde wing of Berlusconi's Forza Italia. So
   that is weird. I feel like he may be a sane guy in an insane house, which
   could mean that he goes in there, tries to fix shit, and gets canned. The
   sort of guy that should run ministry of finance, but you put him in charge
   and he gets whacked (think Kudrin in Russia).

   Either way, interesting move by Silvio. It could either get Tremonti
   wacked, or fix Italy.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Michael Wilson\" <michael.wilson@stratfor.com>
   To: \"alerts\" <alerts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, May 4, 2011 2:35:40 PM
   Subject: G3 - ITALY - Berlusconi says EconMin Tremonti primary candidate
   to        be successor

   saying this now helps repair feelings in the northern league

   Italy's Berlusconi names possible successor
   http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110504/wl_nm/us_italy_berlusconi_tremonti
   By Paulo Biondi Paulo Biondi a** 43 mins ago

   ROME (Reuters) a** Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi named Economy
   Minister Giulio Tremonti as a potential successor to lead the center-right
   if he decides not to stand again in elections planned for 2013.

   The comments, during a television discussion show to be aired on
   Wednesday, follow a series of attacks on Tremonti in a newspaper owned by
   the Berlusconi family, underlining the uncertain climate in the
   center-right.
   Berlusconi, who has previously identified Justice Minister Angelino Alfano
   as a potential successor, said he would consider handing over the
   leadership of the government if a strong candidate emerges so he could
   focus on other duties within his ruling PDL party.
   \"If it is necessary for the center right to name me as a candidate to lead
   the government, then I will not step down,\" Berlusconi said during the
   recording of Porta a Porta, a well-known talk show on state-owned RAI
   television.

   \"But on the other hand if other personalities emerge, and we have several,
   Tremonti primarily...then I would be happy to maybe stay in politics but
   to focus on the PDL, leaving the leadership of the government to others,\"
   he said.

   Tremonti, widely credited for helping to shield Italy from the financial
   crisis, has close links to the Northern League, Berlusconi's sometimes
   unruly coalition ally.

   But his iron grip on spending decisions, his often abrasive personal style
   and perceptions that he is positioning himself to lead a post-Berlusconi
   government, have irritated many ministerial colleagues and other PDL
   leaders.

   Berlusconi has recently sought to play down signs of a government split
   after a newspaper owned by his brother carried a series of articles
   attacking Tremonti.

   Last week he issued a statement expressing full support for his economy
   minister, after many Italian newspapers reported that Tremonti had
   threatened to resign.

   The comments come ahead of regional elections that will show how badly the
   ruling center-right has been damaged by criminal cases against the Italian
   Prime Minister.

   Berlusconi faces several trials on charges including fraud and paying for
   sex with a teenaged nightclub dancer when she was below the legal age
   limit of 18. He denies all charges.

   (Writing by Catherine Hornby)

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com


   --
   Marko Papic

   STRATFOR Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2011-05-04 23:20:47",1,"2012-03-02 13:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1767718_re-eurasia-g3-italy-berlusconi-says-econmin-tremonti-primary.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:eurasia@stratfor.com","eurasia@stratfor.com,peter.zeihan@stratfor.com",""
1769113,"Re: INSIGHT - AUSTRALIA - Tax - CN65
","   The big miners have signed an MOU with the government on the Mineral
   Resources Rent tax, which is a substantial climbdown by the government,
   but which removes one of three obstacles to Gillard as she prepares to
   call a general election at the end of August. Gillard will now tackle her
   other two immediate problems - the big increase in the number of asylum
   seekers arriving by boat, which is a hot political issue, and the
   reintroduction of some kind of move to reduce carbon emissions. Rudd's
   decision to drop the emissions trading scheme after championing climate
   change as \"the most urgent issue facing the planet\" were, along with the
   mining tax, the reason Labor dumped him as leader 8 days ago. 
   Gillard is likely to deal with these two issues in the next fortnight in
   order to enable her to call this early election. The asylum seekers issue
   will probably be resolved by Australia and a number of other SE Asian
   nations, including Indonesia, supporting a proposal to process asylum
   seekers to the region  on East Timor. At present those seeking asylum in
   Australia are detained on Christmas Island, which is full to overflowing. 
   The Mineral Resources Rent Tax, with its lower rate of 30 per cent, will
   only cover iron ore and coal, not all resources. On shore oil and gas,
   including coal seam gas, will now come under the Petroleum Resources rent
   tax, where the rate is 40 per cent. Other big minerals like gold,
   uranium(Australia is the world's biggest producer) and copper are not
   covered, but discussions will go on about them. 
   There is to be a task force, chaired by Don Argus, former chairman of the
   world's biggest miner, Australia-based BHP Billiton, to work through these
   and other outstanding issues, and to join in the drafting of the
   legislation.
   It is important to note that the legislation will not be presented to
   Parliament for about one year - in other words after the election. If
   Gillard loses the election, then the whole thing will be dropped, as the
   Coalition remains opposed to it. However the big miners have left
   Opposition leader Tony Abbott high and dry by signing up with the Gillard
   government - after he had supported them tooth and nail. Gillard's sure
   footed start as PM has white anted him, the polls have turned back to
   Labor, and it is hard to see her not being elected. The big miners clearly
   drew that conclusion in coming to a deal.
   The Government intends to pay for its concessions to the miners by
   dropping plans to cut company tax by one per cent for the time being. 
   Incidentally, while it is true that Australia always needs foreign
   capital, that argument can be exaggerated. First, as Matt indicated, it
   has not inconsiderable capital of its own, largely due to a very high
   savings ratio and investment in the nation's super funds rose by $30
   billion last quarter to over $1 trillion. It also has several
   multinationals with substantial overseas assets like BHP Billiton
   (mining), Westfield (property and retailing), Boral (building materials)
   Leighton Holdings (construction) Santos (oil), Macquarie (Banking) etc
   etc. It also has had no problem in attracting capital in the past 50
   years, and while some of the miners were threatening to withdraw future
   projects, they continued to invest even during the dispute, as the numbers
   show. It will still require more capital as it moves towards challenging
   Saudi Arabia as the world's leading energy producer in 15 years' time. The
   most unexploited mineral here is uranium, because the government limits
   mining to three mines and has not embraced nuclear power. 
   Colin
   On 02/07/2010, at 11:29 AM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

     SOURCE: CN65
     ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
     natural resources
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator.  Source is 
     well-connected politically, militarily and economically.  He has become
     a
     private businessman helping foreign companies with M&As
     PUBLICATION: Yes but with no attribution
     SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1/2
     DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

     Gillard claims there will be no RSPT.  She says, however, that there
     will be a Mineral Resources Rent Tax.
     These are the details of the proposed changes to the tax regime:
       * coal and iron ore to be subject to the tax at a threshold rate to be
         changed from 5% to LTBR +75
       * the headline rate for these resources to be 30%
       * tax will not be restrospective, i.e. existing mines will not be
         subject to the tax until they hit the hurdles
       * oil, gas, CSG to be subject to the PRRT regime at the rate of 40%
     The changes will reduce the tax take by A$1.5 billion, but the total tax
     was anticipated to be A$9 billion per annum, so there is still a large
     tax take.
     The big issues will be as follows:
       * the government will claim that the small miners chasing other
         resources such as moly, nickel, manganese, gold, uranium, etc won't
         be affected
       * the opposition will argue it is still a massive tax take, but will
         be forced to face compliance by BHP, and Rio, so they will highlight
         the impact on small businesses that hang the off the mining industry
       * the other issue will be that the money is going from the states to
         Canberra, further exacerbating vertical fiscal imbalance

     Source also sent this link on the tax: 
     http://production.miningaustralia.com.au/news/mining-tax-slashed?utm_source=20100702&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletters

     Source sent this from another of his politico buddies:
     http://www.futuretax.gov.au/documents/attachments/Fact_Sheet_resource_taxation.pdf
     It looks like no change between the RSPT and the MRRT in terms of the
     treatment of State Royalties....
     \"The MRRT will also provide a full credit for state royalties paid by a
     taxpayer in respect of a mining project. Unused credits for royalties
     paid will be uplifted at the long term government bond rate plus 7 per
     cent, as per other expenses. Unused royalty credits will not be
     transferrable between projects or refundable.\"
     This policy debacle has been a missed opportunity for States to point
     out the flaws in Comm-State financing arrangements.  The lone voice has
     been Colin Barnett in WA, but his voice alone is not strong enough - we
     need more Liberal Premiers.  I fear this debate will have to wait
     another 5 years before we get anywhere. Nonetheless, the LNP needs to be
     ready to argue the case for more control over State revenue.  This will
     undoubtedly involve a higher and broader GST at some stage in the next
     decade.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director, Stratfor
 US Mobile: (512) 422-9335
 China Mobile: (86) 15801890731
 Email: richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2010-07-02 10:20:55",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1769113_re-insight-australia-tax-cn65-.html","chapman@stratfor.com","","analysts@stratfor.com,marko.papic@stratfor.com,jay.young@core.stratfor.com",""
1781076,"INSIGHT - AUSTRALIA - Elections - CN65
","   SOURCE: CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator.  Who is heading the
   campaign for the Liberal-National coalition seat in Queensland
   PUBLICATION: Yes but with no attribution
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 3
   DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

   With the candidates seemingly neck and neck, what are your predictions? 
   Coalition should win Hasluck (WA), Solomon (NT), Leichhardt (Qld), Flynn
   (Qld), Wright (Qld), Brisbane (Qld), Dawson (Qld), Page (NSW), Lindsay
   (NSW), and possibly win another two or three seats in NSW plus Longman
   (Qld) and Forde (Qld).
   Coalition could lose Macmillan (Vic), McEwen (Vic), Boothby (SA), and
   Sturt (SA).

     Has Labour managed to regain some of its lost support, or does it
     continue to decline? 

   The Labor party has clawed back some vote in the south.  The unions are
   outspending the Coalition massively on electronic advertising, when ends
   at midnight tonight.  There is always a swing back tot he government in
   the last two weeks, no matter who the government is.

     Reports say that the Liberal-National coalition is willing to open up
     uranium exports to India: is this a change that only the coaltion would
     make, or would Labour also consider such a decision if it remains in
     power? 

   The Coalition signed a uranium export agreement with India when in
   government, but Labor reneged on it. Most of the differences are on
   domestic politics, but there are big differences on boat people which have
   implications on foreign politics in the South Pacific. 

     In addition to the mining tax debate and the asylum seekers, what are
     the other most divisive issues that could develop into concrete changes
     in Australia's behavior depending on the winner? 

   Mining tax, boat people, overall deficit, infrastructure.

     Will the victory of either side affect Australia's role in US-led NATO
     operations in Afghanistan?

   Labor under pressure over combat deaths in Afghanistan.  They say they
   will maintain the presence, but the Dutch pull out from Oruzgan has made
   it more difficult.  There is some prospect of a drawn own under Labor.
    The big question is how long the US will stay there.  

   My complete election predictions are:
   The Coalition should win Hasluck (WA), Solomon (NT), Leichhardt (Qld),
   Flynn (Qld), Wright (Qld), Brisbane (Qld), Dawson (Qld), Page (NSW),
   Lindsay (NSW), and possibly win another two or three seats in NSW plus
   Longman (Qld) and Forde (Qld).
   The Coalition could lose Macmillan (Vic), McEwen (Vic), Boothby (SA), and
   Sturt (SA).
   Thus although a Coalition win would be based on the result in Queensland,
   the election will actually be decided in SA and Victoria, where Labor
   gains would offset Coalition wins in Qld WA and NT and help Labor hold
   government.
   The other thing is that there may be no outright winners.  There are two
   independent members of the House or Representatives, and a really close
   result could see one side or the other having to form a government with
   the actual participation, or else support, of these independents, and any
   other independents who may win seats on Saturday.  No Australian PM has
   been dependent upon the support of independents since Arthur Fadden in
   1940.

   Source then sent this from the coalition daily update:

   From Day One the Coalition will take Real Action to restore Australiaa**s
   finances.
     * We will pay back Labora**s debt. Our Debt Reduction Taskforce will
       manage the process of delivering savings, and proceeds from the sale
       of Medibank Private will go towards paying off the debt.
     * We will end the waste by suspending payments under Labora**s BER
       programme, establishing an Office of Due Diligence and establishing a
       Waste Action website to enable Australians to report waste and suggest
       savings.
     * We will stop Labora**s higher taxes by removing the threat of the
       mining tax and the carbon tax, cutting company tax and providing a
       pathway to further tax relief once debt is under control.
     * We will boost productivity and participation through policies
       including a real Paid Parental Leave scheme, support for small
       business and a boost to infrastructure investment.
     * We will make sustainability the cornerstone of economic decisionmaking
       by reconstituting the Productivity Commission as the Productivity and
       Sustainability Commission. We will deliver our direct action plan on
       the Environment and Climate Change and our water policy.
   We need to reject the incompetence and spin of Julia Gillard and the Labor
   factions.
   We need Real Action.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director, Stratfor
 US Mobile: (512) 422-9335
 China Mobile: (86) 15801890731
 Email: richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com




   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer/Beijing Correspondent, STRATFOR
   China Mobile: (86) 1581 1579142
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-08-18 04:05:33",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1781076_insight-australia-elections-cn65-.html","chris.farnham@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1782561,"Re: FOR EDIT - GUATEMALA MASSACRE TACTICAL ANALYSIS - 110519
","   if she becomes the real president, you have a de-facto narco-state, just
   more official

   ill gather more on this for an SI piece on her potential presidency

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Karen Hooper\" <karen.hooper@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 9:30:32 AM
   Subject: Re: FOR EDIT - GUATEMALA MASSACRE TACTICAL ANALYSIS - 110519

   I'd love to see what evidence we have on her that leads us to believe
   she's so much more corrupt than the rest of the elite, or than her
   husband. All I've heard so far is \"rumors\" and \"more than rumors.\"

   And since she's also rumored to be the current real president, what
   changes if she becomes the real president?

   I'm not at all convinced that any leader of Guatemala would be able to
   resist pressure from the narcos when there is money to be made and their
   own skins to save.

   On 5/19/11 10:24 AM, scott stewart wrote:

     Ia**d love to see SI do a high level political piece on Sandra Torres
     and the implications of her potential election.

      

      

      

      

     From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
     [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com] On Behalf Of Karen Hooper
     Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 9:34 AM
     To: Analyst List
     Subject: Re: FOR EDIT - GUATEMALA MASSACRE TACTICAL ANALYSIS - 110519

      

     Threats and mass killings are a different breed, and I think something
     should be said in the analysis that indicates this is a bit of a game
     changer. But I agree entirely that it needs to be in context of previous
     actions. They have indeed been threatening the administration since it
     came in.

     What counts as more than a rumor?

     On 5/19/11 9:28 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

     this isn't the first instance of overt MX cartel presence in Central
     America.  Look at the Zeta threats to Colom just a few months ago.
     saying that this development transforms the geopolitics of Guatemala and
     Central America is a huge overstatement

     The allegations against Sandra are more than just rumors from what I've
     been able to pick up since I first heard about it around 2 yrs ago.
     She's made a lot of enemies, she's also made a lot of money. Wouldn't
     discount the allegations.. it's just something to keep in mind.

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Karen Hooper\" <karen.hooper@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 8:22:14 AM
     Subject: Re: FOR EDIT - GUATEMALA MASSACRE TACTICAL ANALYSIS - 110519

     While we may want to caveate or tone it down, I do not think it's
     unreasonable to indicate that the influx of overt Mexican cartel
     presence in Central America is a game changer. These countries don't
     have the resources to fight the cartels, and the impact of this kind of
     violent message shouldn't be understated.

     Btw, I'd like to know more about why we think Sandra Colom is
     particularly corrupt. I know there have been rumors, but let's not
     forget that a) the elite in Guatemala is invested in discrediting
     outsiders like her, and b) they're all dirty. What do we actually have
     on her?

     Karen Hooper

     Latin America Analyst
     o: 512.744.4300 ext. 4103
     c: 512.750.7234
     STRATFOR
     www.stratfor.com

     On 5/19/11 8:59 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

     also 'grisly', 'horrific', etc.

     the elite landowners don't 'represent' the state.... in fact, Sandra has
     a real problem on her hands with the landed elite the more she tries to
     go down the populist/indigenous vote grabbing route.  The landed elite
     are a powerful part of the state, but represent is not the right word

     i also don't see the basis for this claim \"We expect this to be the
     beginning of a trend which will have dramatic effect upon the
     geopolitics of the country and the greater Central American region. \"

     what is this supposed dramatic effect on the geopolitics of Guatemala
     and CA?  The Zetas have been there for a long time, likely with the
     cooperation of Sandra Torres and her allies. The Zetas also use messages
     like this to intimidate all the time. This analysis treats the event as
     if something radically new is happening.  The mass killing is notable
     for sure, but I really do not see this at all having a fundamental
     impact on Central American geopolitics

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Sean Noonan\" <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Cc: \"Writers@Stratfor. Com\" <writers@stratfor.com>, \"scott stewart\"
     <scott.stewart@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 7:55:48 AM
     Subject: Re: FOR EDIT - GUATEMALA MASSACRE TACTICAL ANALYSIS - 110519

     Please take these loaded words out of the analysis as I suggested
     yesterday:
     massacre (it's a mass murder)
     sadistic (this is now a 'personality disorder' and we are not shrinks. 
     Please describe in dry, tactical terms)
     slaughter (we simply don't use words like this)

     On 5/18/11 6:42 PM, Victoria Allen wrote:

      

     On the night of 14/15 May, 27-29 Guatemalan laborers were slaughtered on
     the farm of a regional landowner near the village of San Benito, Peten
     Department, Guatemalaa**s northernmost province. The mass killing
     appears to be the work of Mexicoa**s Los Zetas cartel, due to the
     combination of the cartela**s known presence in the region, its control
     of Chiapas and Campeche states [LINK:
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20101218-mexican-drug-wars-bloodiest-year-date]
     bordering Peten on the north and west, and the grisly display of
     beheaded and dismembered victims. Somewhat out of character, though, was
     that they wrote the narco-message on a wall of a building with blood a**
     using a victima**s leg as the writing implement a** which is not common
     for Los Zetas. However it has become clear over the last two years that
     Los Zetas tend to kill victims in particularly sadistic ways when time
     allows and a message needs to be sent a** the result being a fearsome
     reputation. That this event occurred and involved Los Zetas, is not what
     makes the massacre significant. When taken together, several unusual
     aspects of this event present the probability that a significant shift
     is in progress in the dynamics of Zeta activities in northern Guatemala.

      

     Peten Department is remote, underdeveloped, and the people are strongly
     independent and distrustful of the Guatemalan government (this will be
     rewritten/reworked by Colby to convey more accurately in a single
     sentence the significance of the culture of the region vis-A -vis
     outsiders, govt, kaibiles, etca*|). It is known that Los Zetas over the
     years have recruited many Guatemalan kaibiles [LINK:
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110209-mexican-cartels-and-guatemalan-politics],
     current or former Guatemalan special forces soldiers, to the point that
     there is a high likelihood that Zetas operating in Guatemala, the
     Yucatan, and southern Mexico are from Guatemala. Based upon reported
     testimony of two of the survivors of the massacre the attackers wore
     military-style fatigues (not uncommon), and that they had Mexican
     accents. The presence of a large group of Mexican Zeta enforcers leads
     to the possibility that this group was sent into Peten Department for a
     specific purpose. In the context of a long presence of Guatemalan Zetas
     in the region, we ask why this change in operations came about.

      

     Further, the surviving witnesses indicated that the gunmen were
     demanding to know the whereabouts of the landowner, Otto Salguero, and
     as the peasants had just arrived to work for Salguero the previous week
     they would not have possessed any useful knowledge to extract a** as
     opposed to that which long-time employees likely would possess. While
     interrogating the peasants regarding the whereabouts of Salguero a** who
     was not on the property at the time a** the peasants were killed, then
     methodically decapitated. But there are large anomalies evident in the
     event.

      

     According to reports from Latin American media, the Zeta force was
     camped in a what was described as a redoubt nearby for several days a**
     most likely in surveillance of Salgueroa**s residence and activities,
     judging by the proximity of their camp to the targeta**s house a** and
     as such probably knew that their apparent target was not on the property
     when they attacked. Additionally it was reported that, at the time the
     attack began, Salguero was attending the funeral of his niece and her
     father-in-law a** who had been killed the previous day by Zetas when the
     pair were delivering ransom money for another family member. The Zetas
     killed and beheaded the people they were interrogating, presumably
     because the peasants could offer no information, but the Zetas likely
     knew where their target was a** and why. The conflicting information
     then points to the potential that Los Zetas slaughtered the peasants
     knowing they were not relevant to whatever activities Salguero was
     engaged in that made him a Zeta target in the first place. There are
     indications in the media that Salgueroa**s activities have been counter
     to Zeta interests for several years, however as there is little clarity
     yet in this aspect of the chain of events, STRATFOR is in the process of
     corroborating rumored connections before giving them credence in
     analysis on this situation.

      

     Regarding the contradiction of reported information and historical
     evidence, another element in play is the leaving of witnesses: Los Zetas
     typically does not do so unless the group wishes to deliver a pointed
     message, though there have been occasions when a victim has a**played
     deada** until the Zetas depart, as occurred at the massacre of the
     Central American migrants in San Fernando last year [LINK:
     http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20100826_revelations_72_migrants_deaths].
     As reported in Guatemalan news on the event, while one survivor did so
     by a**playing deada** after he was wounded, a woman was specifically and
     pointedly spared. She apparently was told by the Zeta leader that she
     would be spared because of her daughters, who were with her and
     reportedly whom she had attempted to protect by covering them with her
     body. As it happens the woman is pregnant as well, but that may not have
     played into the decision to allow her to live. What is not known at this
     point about the Zetas sparing her and her children, is what message she
     may have been specifically instructed to convey after the event came to
     light.

      

     There remains a great deal of uncertain or uncorroborated information
     surrounding the massacre in Peten. STRATFOR is monitoring the
     developments closely, for there are many questions to be answered. It is
     clear though, from the known facts and the identified anomalies, that a
     profound message was being sent. Based upon the available information
     STRATFORa**s initial take is that the message was the violence, that
     because Mexicans were used rather than Guatemalans, Los Zetas are there,
     no one is safe a** from the average peasant to the elite landowners (who
     represent the state). The more gruesome the scene created by Los Zetas,
     the more it will remind the Guatemalan people of the horrific acts of
     the death squads during that countrya**s 36 year civil war a** and the
     death squads were kaibiles, who now are aligned with Los Zetas. The
     connection will have been made. The primal fear this event instilled in
     Guatemalans has been evidenced by STRATFORa**s sources in that country
     flatly refusing to discuss or even acknowledge it as having happened. We
     expect this to be the beginning of a trend which will have dramatic
     effect upon the geopolitics of the country and the greater Central
     American region. The second part of this discussion, next week, will
     examine those wider implications which we perceive to have been
     triggered by the massacre at San Benito.

      

      

      

      

     Victoria Allen

     Tactical Analyst (Mexico)

     Strategic Forecasting

     512-279-9475

     victoria.allen@stratfor.com

      

     \"There is nothing more necessary than good intelligence to frustrate a
     designing enemy, & nothing requires greater pains to obtain.\" -- George
     Washington

      

      

      

      

      

      

      

      

      

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2011-05-19 16:39:07",1,"2012-03-01 20:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1782561_re-for-edit-guatemala-massacre-tactical-analysis-110519-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1787633,"INSIGHT - RUSSIA/EUROPE - nat gas money & influence
","   ***LG: we've been looking at the energy sector's income into the Russian
   government. There is a lot we can get #s for... but apparently there is
   some hidden income we didn't know about....
   Also, Stratfor watched Gazprom buy up a SLEW of middle-men natural gas
   companies in Europe and didn't think it mattered since they were
   middle-men and didn't own real infrastructure. Well, apparently they do
   matter since they not only jack up the prices domestically, but also
   create a lot of revenue for the Russian state...
    
    
   CODE: RU105
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Gazprom
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Gazprom spokesman
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: C
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 3
   DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
   HANDLER: Lauren
    
    
   Russian energy is a commodity that is hard to say has suffered during the
   2008-2010 recession. Yes, I agree that natural gas is the main commodity.
   It makes up the bread and butter of the Russian economy. It also makes up
   the bulk of the energy revenue coming in. It can't fluctuate with global
   prices since Europe is on contract prices negotiated years in advance. So
   the recession doesn't matter when it comes to natural gas.
    
   But it does not really contribute to the cushion funds. That is oil, which
   is vulnerable to global prices. But it is still income coming in.
    
   What you need to understand how far Russia has moved into the European
   market outside of basic export-import contracts. Russia's Gazprom now owns
   the majority of Eastern, Central and even a few Western European natural
   gas middle-men. This allows them to collect revenue on Russian natural gas
   going into the countries... a lot of revenue. For example, say Russia
   sells Hungary, Slovakia or Bulgaria natural gas at $350 or $450 per
   thousand cubic meters. The middle-men country (which are never reported
   on) then sell it to industry, the government or domestic consumers at
   $450-$600 per thousand cubic meters. This money goes straight to the
   Russian government and Gazprom. This money isn't accounted for in most #s
   but is part of a large source of income that no one knows about.
   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Watch Officer, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com
","2010-08-13 19:44:01",1,"2012-03-02 10:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1787633_insight-russia-europe-nat-gas-money-and-influence-.html","michael.wilson@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1793631,"Questions for Vinny
","   Hey Lauren,

   Have fun with Mr. Markovski... I just found out on the net that he was
   actually born in Skoplje, Macedonia... Here are some points/questions I
   think would be interesting for you to ask him:

   General Questions about the economy:
   - What is his overall assessment of the financial crisis and its potential
   impact in the Balkans. Is he worried about what is going on?
   - If he is cool with answering this question: who does he bank with and
   why? What is his sense about the Bulgarian banks.
   - How would he characterize the Bulgarian economy? From the looks of it
   (low public debt and a budget surplus) it seems to be doing real well. It
   has a huge trade deficit, but that's normal for all the Balkan states.
   - Which countries in the Balkans is he most interested in investing in?

   IT-related Questions:
   - I would re-read our stratfor analyses about cybersecurity and ask him
   about that kind of stuff. What can a small company like Stratfor do to
   protect itself from cyber-attacks (he'll probably say, \"you can buy my
   services\" ;), etc.
   - Ask him if he had seen Russians using cyber-attacks.
   - How prevalent are hackers from the Balkans still... I know Serbs were
   not bad at it when they want to be.

   Stratfor Business Related:
   - How can we become more visible in the Bulgarian market? (We are thinking
   of going big time into internationalization)

   --
   Marko Papic

   Stratfor Junior Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
   AIM: mpapicstratfor
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1793631_questions-for-vinny-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","Lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com",""
1797953,"Re: Oligarch Sitdown Opportunity...
","   I've got nothing better to do on Oct 10-12 than to sit down with a shady
   Bulgarian billionaire whose handle is \"Vinny\". Maybe he can speak
   Bulgarian to me, which we in Serbia call \"Eastern Serbian\".
   ..
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: \"Lauren Goodrich\" <goodrich@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Peter Zeihan\" <zeihan@stratfor.com>, \"Marko Papic\"
   <marko.papic@stratfor.com>, \"Lauren Goodrich\" <goodrich@stratfor.com>,
   \"George Friedman\" <gfriedman@stratfor.com>, \"Matt Gertken\"
   <matt.gertken@stratfor.com>, \"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 1:37:41 PM GMT -05:00 Columbia
   Subject: Oligarch Sitdown Opportunity...

   Just to fill everyone ina*|
    
   I have been contacted by Veni Markovsky, who is Bulgariaa**s billionaire
   telecommunications oligarch. He brought internet to like 9 eastern
   European countries. He is also very good pals with Michael Dell, who
   introduced him to us.
    
   Anyway, he is very interested in us and what we publish. He said that
   during the war, we were the only ones to a**get ita** & a**not be taken
   off guarda**.
    
   He is interested in talking about Russia (and other EE & CIS countries) in
   business, finance and economy. He is currently organizing a summit for
   Putin, Medvedev & Russian and European companies to discuss the financial
   & business situation. He also does a lot of business in Russia and places
   like Ukraine, Turkmenistan, etc.

   He is willing to talk to us about how he sees things shaping up there now
   (post-war) and wants to dispel a lot of what is in the media (ie, that
   foreigners are just going to run away from Russian investment).Anywaya*|
   he has asked for a big sitdown with me to go through econ, finance,
   politics of Eurasia post-war & has opened it up if any of ya**all would
   like to come. It would be sometime @ Oct 10-12, when he visits Texasa*|
   hea**s still working out the details.
    
   Ya**all interested?
   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com

   --
   Marko Papic

   Stratfor Junior Analyst
   C: + 1-512-905-3091
   marko.papic@stratfor.com
   AIM: mpapicstratfor
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1797953_re-oligarch-sitdown-opportunity-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com,burton@stratfor.com,zeihan@stratfor.com,goodrich@stratfor.com,matt.gertken@stratfor.com",""
1800240,"Re: INSIGHT - AUSTRALIA - Independents split - CN65
","   Chris and I were just discussing this. the plan is a national funded and
   controlled fiber optic broadband network. The security issue has not
   received nearly as much debate or discussion as the political debates
   about cost and competitiveness, even though it was frequently referred to
   during the China-Google debates. The criticism by some activists has been
   that Oz will have complete control over information. The complaint by
   national security types has been that a foreign sponsored hacker (such as
   China) would access a gold mine by breaking into this network, and that it
   should be coupled with a more comprehensive cyber-security plan.

   we need more info about it but here is the Oz House of Reps' latest report
   on cyber crime which was oft-cited in questions relating to this:
   http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/coms/cybercrime/report.htm

   essentially the security risk argument is that a centrally administered
   broadband network would be more vulnerable to foreign attack.

   Of course will defer to Jen's source on this and would very much like to
   hear more details/specifics (or links to places to find them) about the
   security risks.

   Peter Zeihan wrote:

     how is the NBN a security risk?

     On 9/7/2010 9:44 AM, Antonia Colibasanu wrote:

       National Broadband Network
","2010-09-07 18:19:55",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1800240_re-insight-australia-independents-split-cn65-.html","matt.gertken@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1808255,"Re: Former Spanish PM Azner
","   At least 20 camps? Pretty impressive. That's more than I've seen in OS,
   where so far all they've been focusing on is the Guasdalito camp where
   Cubillas was allegedly at, but it's quite possible all those former
   etarras are spread out all over the place. I would he's a lot more open
   about heaping criticisms on Chavez since I heard him speak at Trinity back
   in 2004, where he referred to him as \"an interesting man.\" My brother has
   a picture of himself with Aznar at that event. Every time I look at it I
   really do think, it's always his hair that I notice.....

   -----------------
   Reginald Thompson

   Cell: (011) 504 8990-7741

   OSINT
   Stratfor

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 5:26:21 PM
   Subject: Former Spanish PM Azner

   Wow, SeA+-or presidente is hardcore.. Way more extreme than even the  
   Israeli officials I've heard speak. He honestly believes that all  
   terrorists are the same and that nothing short of total war can defeat  
   them. He is adamantly against any kind of negotiation with terrorists  
   and criticizes France, Germany and others heavily in this regard. He  
   attributes French and German \"weakness\" on counterterrorism to their  
   larger Muslim populations. He said OBL's statement on retaking Andaluz  
   is all he heard and the Germans and French just didn't get it. He says  
   poverty has zero connection to terrorism and that developmental aid  
   policies are useless. On ETA, he said the ceasefires are just time  
   buying measures, nothing more. In Catalonia he says the regional govt  
   encourages Muslim immigration from Pakistan, Algeria, etc because they  
   can more easily linguistically integrate them as opposed to Spanish-
   speaking immigrants. This is also where the most radical imams are in  
   the country. He also said ETA has at least 20 camps in Venezuela and  
   ggat farc and eta work with each other in training l, weapons, etc.

   Overall, he's very ideological and hardline. Good reminder of the  
   personal role in poltics (though he also paid for that and is  
   embarassed by his loss)

   Also, great hair.

   Sent from my iPhone
","2010-11-17 00:35:40",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1808255_re-former-spanish-pm-azner-.html","reginald.thompson@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1812436,"BULGARIA - SRM UPDATE- 090106
","","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-28 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1812436_bulgaria-srm-update-090106-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","Lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com,srmupdate@stratfor.com","attach/128/128973_BULGARIA - Country Writeup - 090106.doc"
1813919,"Re: [Eurasia] Athens' Indignants threaten political system
","   You know this happened in Mexico after the last Presidential elections and
   Calderon just let them sit there for a year and a half.

   On 6/3/11 8:26 AM, Benjamin Preisler wrote:

     Depends on their numbers. If they get a massive group of people (very
     unlikely of course) just sitting around somewhere then it'll matter to
     some extent and at some point. But other than that you're right as long
     as they don't start rioting a bit they'll just be ignored under some
     kind of a number threshold.

     Look at Spain though, let's assume they get a few (in the high) hundreds
     for the nights and then thousands during the day. They'll force some
     kind of a reaction (especially because the Greek police cannot empty
     that square for political reasons). No idea what kind of number
     potential we're talking about with these guys though.

     On 06/03/2011 02:14 PM, Marko Papic wrote:

       Ok, so... If they refuse to vote for anyone and dont have the balls to
       riot, how do they matter? 
       It is a legit question. I am asking. 

       On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:08 AM, Benjamin Preisler
       <ben.preisler@stratfor.com> wrote:

 To Ethnos - Greece. For more than a week now the \"indignant
 citizens\" movement has been demonstrating in Athens against the
 government's drastic austerity measures. The protests are a
 symptom of a major crisis of the political system in which the
 great majority of citizens have lost faith in the parties,
 writes the left-liberal daily To Ethnos: \"Already the parties
 are discussing whether this phenomenon represents a threat to
 the political system, while others believe it is just an
 insignificant expression of anger - without political weight or
 serious repercussions. ... The people who have gathered at
 Athens' main square reject the entire structure of the system:
 the parties, trade unions, media and institutions. They are
 making the point that they won't vote for the [socialist ruling
 party] Pasok, or the [liberal-conservative opposition party] Nea
 Dimokratia, nor for the communist KKE party or the radical left
 coalition Syriza. This is why the parties are not taking a
 positive view of the demonstrators.\" (02/06/2011) +++
 http://www.ethnos.gr/article.asp?catid=22792&subid=2&pubid=63111062


 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19

 --
 Marko Papic
 Senior Analyst
 STRATFOR
 + 1-512-744-4094 (O)
 + 1-512-905-3091 (C)
 221 W. 6th St, Ste. 400
 Austin, TX 78701 - USA
 www.stratfor.com
 @marko_papic
","2011-06-03 15:50:23",1,"2011-03-05 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1813919_re-eurasia-athens-indignants-threaten-political-system-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:eurasia@stratfor.com","eurasia@stratfor.com,ben.preisler@stratfor.com",""
1814492,"SRM UPDATE - BULGARIA - 081013
","","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-28 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1814492_srm-update-bulgaria-081013-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","srmupdate@stratfor.com","attach/129/129036_BULGARIA - Country Writeup - 081013.doc"
1814928,"Re: Former Spanish PM Azner
","   Yes, awesome hair.

   Also, I don't think he is ideological or necessarily hardline. I would
   argue that about half of all Spaniards definitely agree with him. The
   problem with Spain is that half of the country is worried about external
   threats coming over from North Africa and the other half thinks that the
   biggest threat is Madrid.

   On 11/16/10 4:26 PM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

     Wow, Senor presidente is hardcore.. Way more extreme than even the
     Israeli officials I've heard speak. He honestly believes that all
     terrorists are the same and that nothing short of total war can defeat
     them. He is adamantly against any kind of negotiation with terrorists
     and criticizes France, Germany and others heavily in this regard. He
     attributes French and German \"weakness\" on counterterrorism to their
     larger Muslim populations. He said OBL's statement on retaking Andaluz
     is all he heard and the Germans and French just didn't get it. He says
     poverty has zero connection to terrorism and that developmental aid
     policies are useless. On ETA, he said the ceasefires are just time
     buying measures, nothing more. In Catalonia he says the regional govt
     encourages Muslim immigration from Pakistan, Algeria, etc because they
     can more easily linguistically integrate them as opposed to
     Spanish-speaking immigrants. This is also where the most radical imams
     are in the country. He also said ETA has at least 20 camps in Venezuela
     and ggat farc and eta work with each other in training l, weapons, etc.

     Overall, he's very ideological and hardline. Good reminder of the
     personal role in poltics (though he also paid for that and is embarassed
     by his loss)

     Also, great hair.

     Sent from my iPhone

   --

   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

   Marko Papic

   Geopol Analyst - Eurasia

   STRATFOR

   700 Lavaca Street - 900

   Austin, Texas

   78701 USA

   P: + 1-512-744-4094

   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-11-17 00:31:32",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1814928_re-former-spanish-pm-azner-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","analysts@stratfor.com,reva.bhalla@stratfor.com",""
1815209,"Re: Former Spanish PM Azner
","   Haha, I'm glad you noticed those gorgeous locks as well
   Aznar could have been exaggerating the ETA in VZ stuff, but who knows

   Sent from my iPhone
   On Nov 16, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Reginald Thompson
   <reginald.thompson@stratfor.com> wrote:

     At least 20 camps? Pretty impressive. That's more than I've seen in OS,
     where so far all they've been focusing on is the Guasdalito camp where
     Cubillas was allegedly at, but it's quite possible all those former
     etarras are spread out all over the place. I would he's a lot more open
     about heaping criticisms on Chavez since I heard him speak at Trinity
     back in 2004, where he referred to him as \"an interesting man.\" My
     brother has a picture of himself with Aznar at that event. Every time I
     look at it I really do think, it's always his hair that I notice.....

     -----------------
     Reginald Thompson

     Cell: (011) 504 8990-7741

     OSINT
     Stratfor

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 5:26:21 PM
     Subject: Former Spanish PM Azner

     Wow, SeA+-or presidente is hardcore.. Way more extreme than even the  
     Israeli officials I've heard speak. He honestly believes that all  
     terrorists are the same and that nothing short of total war can defeat  
     them. He is adamantly against any kind of negotiation with terrorists  
     and criticizes France, Germany and others heavily in this regard. He  
     attributes French and German \"weakness\" on counterterrorism to their  
     larger Muslim populations. He said OBL's statement on retaking Andaluz  
     is all he heard and the Germans and French just didn't get it. He says  
     poverty has zero connection to terrorism and that developmental aid  
     policies are useless. On ETA, he said the ceasefires are just time  
     buying measures, nothing more. In Catalonia he says the regional govt  
     encourages Muslim immigration from Pakistan, Algeria, etc because they  
     can more easily linguistically integrate them as opposed to Spanish-
     speaking immigrants. This is also where the most radical imams are in  
     the country. He also said ETA has at least 20 camps in Venezuela and  
     ggat farc and eta work with each other in training l, weapons, etc.

     Overall, he's very ideological and hardline. Good reminder of the  
     personal role in poltics (though he also paid for that and is  
     embarassed by his loss)

     Also, great hair.

     Sent from my iPhone
","2010-11-17 00:44:52",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1815209_re-former-spanish-pm-azner-.html","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1824461,"Re: anybody have questions for former Spanish PM Aznar
","   he is impeccably dressed. the most beautiful hair... so silky and shiny! i
   might ask him what shampoo he uses
   On Nov 16, 2010, at 3:41 PM, Bayless Parsley wrote:

     Como se dice \"Movember\" en espanol?

     <moz-screenshot-68.png>

     On 11/16/10 3:33 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:

       Uh, how about a party for stratfor in his (or one of his friends')
       mediterranean villa?

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       From: Michael Wilson <michael.wilson@stratfor.com>
       Sender: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
       Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:32:32 -0600
       To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
       ReplyTo: Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
       Subject: Re: anybody have questions for former Spanish PM Aznar
       can i crash on his couch?

       On 11/16/10 3:26 PM, Bayless Parsley wrote:

         can you just tell him \"good call on blaming ETA\" for me?

         On 11/16/10 3:18 PM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

           he's teaching our class today

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com
","2010-11-16 22:44:36",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1824461_re-anybody-have-questions-for-former-spanish-pm-aznar-.html","reva.bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
1850591,"SYRIA/ISRAEL/PNA/UN - Syria Renews Demand for Ending Israeli
 Systematic Violations in Occupied Golan
","   Syria Renews Demand for Ending Israeli Systematic Violations in Occupied   
   Golan                                                                      
                                                                              
   Sep 28, 2010                                                               
                                                                              
                                                                              
   http://www.sana.sy/eng/22/2010/09/28/310091.htm                            
   Geneva, (SANA)- Syria on Monday renewed its demand for stopping the        
   Israeli continued violations of human rights against the Palestinians,     
   lifting unjust siege on Gaza Strip and granting the Palestinian people     
   their right to self-determination and establishment of its independent     
   state with Jerusalem as its capital.                                       
                                                                              
   This demand came during Syria's Permanent Representative to the UN Office  
   in Geneva Faisal al-Hamwi's speech, on behalf of the Arab Group, during    
   the discussions of the Human Rights Council on the Israeli violations of   
   human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories and in the occupied   
   Syrian Golan.                                                              
                                                                              
   The Council was briefed on Judge Goldstone report which condemned Israel's 
   rejection of cooperation with his committee.                               
                                                                              
   Al-Hamwi called for condemning Israel for its rejection to cooperate with  
   Goldstone's committee, noting that Israeli indifference and rejection of   
   the Committee's investigations aim at escaping punishment.                 
                                                                              
   He stressed the necessity that the council should not allow the rights of  
   the victims of Gaza massacre to be wasted as were the rights of the        
   victims of Bait Hanoun and other Israeli-perpetrated massacres.            
                                                                              
   The Council sited the human rights violations in the occupied Palestinian  
   territories and in the occupied Syrian Golan. Al-Hamwi enumerated the      
   Israeli violations of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories 
   and occupied Syrian Golan which included all sides of life.                
                                                                              
   During the Council's general discussions of Chapter VII on the situation   
   of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories and in the other   
   occupied Arab lands, al-Hamwi said, in Syria's statement to the Council, \" 
   Day after day, the Israeli occupation continued its violations of the      
   human rights in the occupied Syrian Golan\", pointing out that with the     
   entry of the Syrian prisoners their 26th years in the Israeli jails,       
   Israel continues depriving the citizens of the occupied Syrian Golan of    
   clean water and exploit it to the Israeli settlers interest.               
                                                                              
   The statement called for an examination of the details of this attack and  
   of a number of other attacks against the Syrian citizens in the occupied   
   Golan in a message addressed by Syria's Foreign Minister to President of   
   Human Rights Council in August 31, 2010.                                   
                                                                              
   Al-Hamwi concluded his statement as saying that no matter how the Israeli  
   distortion campaign increased, we and all the countries which believe in   
   the true human rights without double standards, will follow-up the         
   occupation in this council to expose the truth and to release the          
   prisoners and allow our citizens to enjoy their right in visiting their    
   motherland without conditions in addition to the main demand of ending the 
   Israeli occupation of the occupied Syrian Golan.                           
                                                                              
   H. Zain/ Al-Ibrahim                                                        
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1850591_syria-israel-pna-un-syria-renews-demand-for-ending-israeli.html","basima.sadeq@stratfor.com","","os@stratfor.com",""
1891085,"Re: [CT] INSIGHT - Mexico - ICE Hit - US706
","   Here is a recap of insight from Fred's fed LE contacts that we drafted
   this morning. Fred suggests we take out some specifics if we write on it
   for the website though, like specific reference to Subway so we don't get
   his sources in trouble. 

   According to STRATFOR sources with knowledge of the investigation and
   details surrounding the attack, the working theory behind the attack
   against the two ICE agents was that they were the target of a \"hit\"
   sanctioned by the top ranks of the Los Zetas cartel. Originally it was
   thought that the men were targeted because they were driving in (according
   to sources) a high-profile, fully-armored navy blue Suburban SUV, a valued
   commodity amongst cartel members. 

   While a carjacking may have been the original intent once the vehicle was
   first spotted, according to STRATFOR sources, the two agents stopped for
   lunch at a Subway fast-food restaurant along the route before the
   incident. While the distance between the restaurant and the roadblock
   where the shooting took place is not yet known, it is possible that
   stopping while in route from Mexico City to Monterrey may have led to them
   to be identified as U.S. law enforcement and provided time for Zetas
   associates to put an operation in place to target the two agents at the
   roadblock (we believe a rolling roadblock) along Hwy 57.  This is
   especially possible since according to sources, the vehicle they were
   driving had diplomatic mission license plates. As the agents stopped (or
   were forced/boxed in) at the roadblock (which they thought was that of the
   military), it would be difficult for the gunmen not to have noticed the
   specialized plates indicating the vehicle as that of U.S. federal law
   enforcement.   There is a specific two-letter code issued on license
   plates to federal agents inside Mexico.

   As the ICE agent who survived begins to provide more details, the tactical
   operation and motive of the attack will become clearer. Still, we are left
   with the question of why the gunmen did not kill both men, not leaving any
   witnesses if they did know the two men were U.S. agents. However, this
   insight from well-placed U.S. federal security sources indicates that the
   agents may have been targeted because of their status as U.S. federal
   agents, a possibility which we are continuing to explore.
   On 2/17/11 2:56 PM, scott stewart wrote:

     I'm open to it.

      

     What it the evidence that points us in that direction?

      

      

      

     From: ct-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:ct-bounces@stratfor.com] On Behalf
     Of Sean Noonan
     Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 2:33 PM
     To: CT AOR
     Subject: Re: [CT] INSIGHT - Mexico - ICE Hit - US706

      

     readers and sources seem pretty critical of our point that it was a
     carjacking.  I wouldn't know, but should we reevaluate?

     On 2/17/11 11:30 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

 Its not the federal working theory however.

  

 Scott Stewart wrote:

 That is one of the points I made yesterday..

  

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 *From: *\"Michael Wilson\" <michael.wilson@stratfor.com>

 *To: *\"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>

 *Sent: *Thursday, February 17, 2011 11:19:26 AM

 *Subject: *INSIGHT - Mexico - ICE Hit - US706

  

  

  

 Source Code: US706

 ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR security source

 SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Investigative journalist close to Mexican DTOs

 SOURCE  RELIABILITY:  B

 ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2

 SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION:  analysts

 SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

  

  

 Reports from FOX are claiming that the ICE agents were the intended

 targets..... I find it hard to believe that the attack was

 premeditated---the Zetas don't often leave living witnesses...

  

  

  

      

     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com
","2011-02-17 23:17:21",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1891085_re-ct-insight-mexico-ice-hit-us706-.html","zucha@stratfor.com","mailto:ct@stratfor.com","scott.stewart@stratfor.com,ct@stratfor.com",""
1918074,"Dispatch: Mainland China's \"Occupy Wall Street\" Reaction
","    Stratfor logo                                                             
   Dispatch: Mainland China's \"Occupy Wall Street\" Reaction                   
                                                                              
    October 19, 2011 | 2044 GMT                                               
    Click on image below to watch video:                                      
    [IMG]                                                                     
                                                                              
    China Director Jennifer Richmond explains why the \"Occupy Wall Street\"    
    movement failed to gain traction in mainland China.                       
                                                                              
       Editor*s Note: Transcripts are generated using speech-recognition      
       technology. Therefore, STRATFOR cannot guarantee their complete        
       accuracy.                                                              
                                                                              
    Related Links                                                             
      * China Political Memo: Wenzhou Backs Away from the `Wenzhou Model'     
      * The Effects of Chinese Economic Development on Illicit Trade          
      * China Political Memo: Governmental Reforms for Economic Problems?     
                                                                              
    The \"Occupy Wall Street\" movement has gone global and there have even     
    been attempts to capitalize on this movement in various Chinese cities.   
    The \"Occupy China\" movement, however, has failed to gain traction on the  
    mainland.                                                                 
                                                                              
    We really didn't expect to see this movement transfer to mainland China;  
    however, given the Jasmine protests earlier this year, there were many    
    who were waiting to see whether or not this movement could be             
    rejuvenated by the global call to action. The global Occupy movement      
    lacks a nucleus or leadership. Despite a common theme of corporate        
    greed, there is very little direction on how to proceed and, under these  
    circumstances, we have seen no contagion effect in mainland China.        
                                                                              
    However, the Tiananmen protests in 1989 also started with very little     
    leadership or direction, and many Chinese activists that I've spoken      
    with feel that all that is needed is a spark to ignite a fire. After      
    all, there are plenty of protests localized daily in China, revolving     
    around issues such as land grabs, the environment and even corruption.    
                                                                              
    The Jasmine Movement provided a spark for organized action in China;      
    however, it quickly fizzled under an aggressive government response. The  
    Occupy China movement hasn't even gotten that far. While it is not        
    unforeseeable for a small movement to gain momentum in China, the         
    problem with both the Jasmine and the Occupy movements are that neither   
    were home-grown.                                                          
                                                                              
    Although the Jasmine movement was spearheaded by Chinese, it was done so  
    from overseas. The Occupy movement had supporters and organizers within   
    China, but the concept was foreign-generated.                             
                                                                              
    Moreover, the Chinese government and media has actually acknowledged the  
    Occupy movement in the U.S. and in the EU, taking the opportunity to      
    point out the failures of Wall Street and capitalism, while at the same   
    time, censoring any indication of an Occupy China movement. Also, many    
    Chinese do not have access to the social Internet sites that have helped  
    to ignite these movements in Western countries, namely Facebook. And      
    those that do, find this information quickly scrubbed off of similar      
    Chinese sites.                                                            
                                                                              
    Ultimately, the Chinese, even those that want change, are wary of         
    foreign influences. Anything emanating from outside of the state will be  
    used by the state to highlight foreign interference. That said the        
    domestic wealth gap and its ensuing tensions could generate a homegrown   
    movement that would threaten Beijing much more so than any Occupy Wall    
    Street movement could muster.                                             
                                                                              
    Click for more videos                                                     
                                                                              
    Give us your thoughts                          Read comments on           
    on this report                                 other reports              
                                                                              
    For Publication                                Reader Comments            
                                                                              
    Not For Publication                                                       
                                                                              
    This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with          
    attribution to www.stratfor.com                                           
    Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us                                
    (c) Copyright 2011 Stratfor. All rights reserved.                         
","2011-10-19 23:03:31",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1918074_dispatch-mainland-china-s-occupy-wall-street-reaction-.html","noreply@stratfor.com","","ryan.abbey@stratfor.com",""
1956493,"Re: [CT] Fwd: FW: [Customer Service/Technical Issues] Atricles on
 Wikileaks
","   Definitely.

   I would send a request to writers to do this with ALL our wikileak pieces
   and send it to our U.S. gov't clients directly as a package.

   Show them that we care that the Administration is being stupid.

   On 12/8/10 10:04 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     if this guy is a paying customer we could reply and quickly edit out the
     word wikileaks with a find/replace in Word and send him our last two
     articles on it.  Might as well help a brother out. 
     On 12/8/10 10:02 AM, Marko Papic wrote:

       Speaking of closing the barn door after the horses have already run
       away...

       What insane overkill.

       -------- Original Message --------

        Subject: FW: [Customer Service/Technical Issues] Atricles on          
                 Wikileaks                                                    
           Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 09:30:43 -0600                               
           From: Service <service@stratfor.com>                               
       Reply-To: Responses List <responses@stratfor.com>, Analyst List        
                 <analysts@stratfor.com>                                      
             To: <responses@stratfor.com>                                     

 Ryan Sims
 STRATFOR
 Global Intelligence
 T: 512-744-4087
 F: 512-744-0239
 ryan.sims@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
 

 -----Original Message-----
 From: noreply@stratfor.com [mailto:noreply@stratfor.com] On Behalf Of
 vickie.reschke@conus.army.mil
 Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 9:15 AM
 To: service@stratfor.com
 Subject: [Customer Service/Technical Issues] Atricles on Wikileaks

 vickie.reschke sent a message using the contact form at 
 https://www.stratfor.com/contact.

 The US Army is restricted from viewing any articles with the word Wikileaks

 contained within.
 Is there any way you can replace the word from the article with something 
 \"Assange\" or something else if the article doesn't actually reveal the 
 classified content?
 We don't want to cause a security compromise on our system, but the fallout

 from the divulged data is a valid concern.
 In the mean time, is it possible to send me the article on \"WikiLeaks and 
 U.S. Critical Infrastructure\" your site published yesterday?






     --

     Sean Noonan

     Tactical Analyst

     Office: +1 512-279-9479

     Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

     www.stratfor.com

   --

   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

   Marko Papic

   Geopol Analyst - Eurasia

   STRATFOR

   700 Lavaca Street - 900

   Austin, Texas

   78701 USA

   P: + 1-512-744-4094

   marko.papic@stratfor.com
","2010-12-08 17:06:56",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1956493_re-ct-fwd-fw-customer-service-technical-issues-atricles-on.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:ct@stratfor.com","ct@stratfor.com",""
1966214,"INDIA/CT - Bhopal gas leak convictions not enough, say campaigners
","            Bhopal gas leak convictions not enough, say campaigners

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10260109.stm
   Monday, 7 June 2010 19:29 UK

   Convictions over a gas plant leak that killed thousands of people in 1984
   in the Indian city of Bhopal have been heavily criticised by campaigners.

   Amnesty International described the two-year sentences for eight people as
   \"too little, too late\".

   The convictions are the first since the disaster at the Union Carbide
   plant - the world's worst industrial accident.

   The eight Indians, all former plant employees, were convicted of \"death by
   negligence\".

   One was convicted posthumously. The others are expected to appeal.

   Nityanand Jayaraman, of the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal
   campaign group, told the BBC the punishment imposed on Union Carbide was
   wholly inadequate.

   \"I share the Bhopalis' sense of outrage and betrayal,\" he said.

   \"I feel that it portends ill for the country that industrialists and
   corporations are being told that they can actually get away with murder,
   and today's verdict is essentially that - a signal that [after] the
   world's worst industrial disaster, the people who were accused of that are
   just being let off with a rap on the knuckles.\"

   Satinath Sarangi, an activist also campaigning on behalf of Bhopal
   victims, told the BBC that justice would not be done until US executives
   from Union Carbide at the time of the incident - including the company's
   former head, Warren Anderson - were brought to India to face justice.

   \"This is not the justice that we have been waiting for, because the
   principal accused - Warren Anderson, Union Carbide corporation USA - are
   not here,\" he said.

   \"The charges that have been [laid] on the Indian accused have essentially
   been the charges that you would put for a traffic accident. This is indeed
   a very sad day for us.\"

   Forty tonnes of a toxin called methyl isocyanate leaked from the pesticide
   factory and settled over slums in Bhopal on 3 December 1984.

   Official figures show at least 3,000 people died at the time and as many
   as 15,000 have died since.

   Campaigners put the death toll as high as 25,000 and say the horrific
   effects of the gas continue to this day.

   'Unacceptable'

   Amnesty International also called on the Indian and US governments to take
   legal action against US executives of Union Carbide.

   \"These are historic convictions, but it is too little, too late,\" said
   Audrey Gaughran, an Amnesty director.

   \"Twenty-five years is an unacceptable length of time for the survivors of
   the disaster and families of the dead to have waited for a criminal trial
   to reach a conclusion.

   \"While the Indian employees have now been tried and convicted, the foreign
   accused have been able to evade justice simply by remaining abroad. This
   is totally unacceptable.\"

   Rashida Bee, president of the Bhopal Gas Women's Workers group, told the
   AFP news agency that \"justice will be done in Bhopal only if individuals
   and corporations responsible are punished in an exemplary manner\".

   Although Warren Anderson was named as an accused and later declared an
   \"absconder\" by the court, he was not mentioned in Monday's verdict.

   The eight convicted on Monday were Keshub Mahindra, the chairman of the
   Indian arm of the Union Carbide (UCIL); VP Gokhale, managing director;
   Kishore Kamdar, vice-president; J Mukund, works manager; SP Chowdhury,
   production manager; KV Shetty, plant superintendent; SI Qureshi,
   production assistant. All of them are Indians.

   The seven former employees, some of whom are now in their 70s, were also
   ordered to pay fines of 100,000 Indian rupees (A-L-1,467; $2,125) apiece.

   The site of the former pesticide plant is now abandoned.

   It was taken over by the state government of Madhya Pradesh in 1998, but
   environmentalists say poison is still found there.

   Campaigners say Bhopal has an unusually high incidence of children with
   birth defects and growth deficiency, as well as cancers, diabetes and
   other chronic illnesses.

   Twenty years ago Union Carbide paid $470m (A-L-282m) in compensation to
   the Indian government.

   Dow Chemicals, which bought the company in 1999, says this settlement
   resolved all existing and future claims against the company.

   Paulo Gregoire
   ADP
   STRATFOR
   www.stratfor.com
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1966214_india-ct-bhopal-gas-leak-convictions-not-enough-say.html","paulo.gregoire@stratfor.com","","os@stratfor.com",""
1977338,"Re: [alpha] Musings on The Outfit
","   I know. Kid needs backup

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Reva Bhalla <bhalla@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:36:18 -0500 (CDT)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] Musings on The Outfit
   I think that was his point.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"George Friedman\" <friedman@att.blackberry.net>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2011 10:35:24 AM
   Subject: Re: [alpha] Musings on The Outfit

   Actually byu grads do try that. And die.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Marko Papic <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:30:37 -0500 (CDT)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] Musings on The Outfit
   I disagree... It's not a small percentage of field-jobs and it is not
   always about the right skills in the right places. This goes beyond gender
   discrimination. It has to also deal with cultural understandings,
   experience, etc. Let's forget that the thread is about women. It would be
   like putting a BYU grad with 6 weeks of Serbo-Croatian training to
   negotiate with Red Berets in 1999. Good luck with that.

   I think one could use this thread as an S-weekly topic.

   On 7/6/11 10:24 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

     Like I said, its a question of how resources are put to use. Some skills
     come naturally, some skills come with training (and that enhances the
     former category) and a few others are based on gender, such as
     conversing with a male islamist. But look how specific that last example
     is- whether its interrogation or recruiting, that's a very small
     percentage of jobs.

     Put the people with the right skills in the right places.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Karen Hooper <hooper@stratfor.com>
     Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
     Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:11:56 -0500 (CDT)
     To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
     ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Re: [alpha] Musings on The Outfit
     Gender discrimination is appropriate in many circumstances. My only
     objection is to the assumption that women cannot be trained to react
     appropriately in a given situation. Clearly Khost was a fuck up. It was
     not a fuck up because she was a woman, but because she mishandled the
     situation. It sounds like her boss compounded the problem by failing to
     oversee the operation. Given that he was a white male and not a muslim
     detainee, I don't think we can excuse him from having done his job as a
     supervisor because she was a woman.

     There many be institutional pressures for him to fail at his job and for
     her to be poorly trained, but that's clearly an institutional problem.
     Your daughter had the grace and intelligence to put men in jobs where
     men should be. That should be the standard, and it should be clearly
     articulated. I don't think we're disagreeing on that.

     On 7/6/11 10:03 AM, George Friedman wrote:

       Gender does matter.  Sending a woman to interrogate a Muslim creates
       vast problems for example.  These are different cultures, different
       views of gender and human lives are at stake.  Using women in
       societies that hold them in contempt might be satisfying to American
       ideals and principles, but they can get people killed.  My daughter
       was ran an interrogation center in Iraq where the result of failure
       was death to many Americans. She couldn't be effective in that
       environment and had the grace to know it, so she did not do her job
       but handed off to men.  Iraqi men who would talk to American men would
       possibly be willing to die rather than talk to women.

       We talk about multi-culturalism and we talk about gender and the fact
       is that there are cultures in which women cannot be effect in doing
       intelligence. Placing women in jobs where the culture will make them
       fail is irresponsible and women demanding those jobs because of
       ideology is criminal.  It's a big world out there and the way others
       live isn't the way we live. Intelligence is not about reforming the
       world but getting information. There are places I wouldn't send a man
       and places I wouldn't send a woman.  Pretending that gender isn't a
       determining factor gets people killed.  I sometimes think that some of
       the gender fanatics are less concerned with that than with pretending
       that men and women can get all jobs done equally well.  They just
       can't. 

       My problem with the number of women in field positions is that they
       are going to fail because they are in that culture and they are women
       and people will die as a result.

       The policy of using women in posts where they will do more harm than
       good in order to push American ideology regardless of consequences is
       what the Agency is doing and it is one of the reasons, among others,
       that we experience intelligence failures.

       On 07/06/11 09:52 , Karen Hooper wrote:

         100 percent on board with that, and those are all things we've
         discussed quite a bit.

         I just want to make sure we're talking about crappy management and
         training, not gender.

         On 7/6/11 9:10 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

           She also arranged \"in the field\" for the 16 (yes 16) greeters to
           meet the GID asset and aQ double-agent  like it was a Stratfor
           happy hour.

           Sources are never met that way.  Its a 1x1 business. 

           Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful for her being there in the first
           place, but boneheaded mistakes by dumb assed bosses get people
           killed. 

           On 7/6/2011 9:03 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

             Career analyst w/out field ops experience. 

             The internal Agency report took the management team to the
             woodshed for sending her there without ops training. 

             On 7/6/2011 8:59 AM, Karen Hooper wrote:

               .... because she was a woman?

               On 7/6/11 8:39 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

                 The base chief woman (analyst) who died in Khost had been a
                 reports officer in London, prior to Khost.  Simply not
                 qualified for the field job. 

                 On 7/6/2011 8:26 AM, Sean Noonan wrote:

                   women are also arguably better at recruiting assets.  Then
                   number is not at all a bad thing, it's more a question of
                   how resources are put to use. 
                   On 7/6/11 7:44 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

 Baer advised the CIA is now 50% women.   The \"gender political
 correctness\" is causing the outfit to ship women to places they
 shouldn't be operating in the field (such as Khost.)   The bulk of the
 Agency have been hired post 9-11 with FNG's also in places they
 shouldn't be.  As a result, the Agency is re-hiring annuitants
 (retirees) for base chief jobs.  The influx of the women has created a
 can of worms with many wanting to be Station Chief's in places they also
 should not be.  The old white males can't say anything about assignments
 for fear of blow-back and lawsuits.

                   --

                   Sean Noonan

                   Tactical Analyst

                   Office: +1 512-279-9479

                   Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

                   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

                   www.stratfor.com

       --

       George Friedman

       Founder and CEO

       STRATFOR

       221 West 6th Street

       Suite 400

       Austin, Texas 78701

        

       Phone: 512-744-4319

       Fax: 512-744-4334

        

 --
 Marko Papic
 Senior Analyst
 STRATFOR
 + 1-512-744-4094 (O)
 + 1-512-905-3091 (C)
 221 W. 6th St., 400
 Austin, TX 78701 - USA
 www.stratfor.com
 @marko_papic
","2011-07-06 17:46:21",1,"2012-02-27 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1977338_re-alpha-musings-on-the-outfit-.html","friedman@att.blackberry.net","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1982174,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1982174_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1984023,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
 CODE
","   Read these pieces to understand the dynamic of the radical
   environmentalists becoming more isolated and therefore progressively more
   prone to violence as they pull away from the moderating influence of their
   less violent colleagues. 
   The second piece talks about funding, but remember that these jabronis do
   not need much funding to blow things up or burn them down or k ill people.
    
   http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/informants_bombs_and_lessons
   http://www.stratfor.com/direct_action_attacks_terrorism_another_name
   http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/u_s_incendiary_activism_santa_cruz
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:36:00 -0600
   To: <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Are they capable of killing or violence (question from the Rangers?) 

   On 11/17/2011 7:01 AM, scott stewart wrote:

     It might sound strange, but some of the most radical deep ecology people
     actually believe that there are too many people on the earth and that
     radical steps must be taken to reduce the population and save the earth.
      This strain of deep ecology is a clear reflection of the way the
     movement was heavily influenced by people like Martin Heidegger who were
     also committed to Nazism. Yes, Nazis were radical environmentalists.....
     From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
     Organization: STRATFOR
     Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:08:31 -0600
     To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green
     Resistance-NO CODE
     Jesus I spent a couple of hours researching these guys - weird is an
     understatement. Apparently they met yesterday a couple of blocks away
     from my house to consolidate their leadership, go through basic
     indoctrination and plan more events. As far as I can tell, the Austin
     chapter is not nearly as radical as the central Lierre Keith DGR whose
     website is a treasure trove of incitment to passive resistance, blowing
     up energy infra, basic counter intel and legal guidance.

     Their ideology seems to be a mix of hardcore environmentalism,
     anarchism, radical feminism and the general notion that we need to go
     back living sustainably like the american indians by blowing up every
     pipeline and cell tower on the planet. Unlike the central DGR, Austin
     DGR doesn't seem to have defined targets and goals (their meeting
     yesterday was a brainstorming session on what radical environmentalism
     means in Austin).

     just a few nice quotes from their central website:

     The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power
     with as much personal integrity as possible; it is to dismantle those
     systems.

     What would we do if Nazis had invaded, and they were vacuuming the
     oceans, scalping native forests, damming every river, changing the
     climate, and putting carcinogens into every mother's breast milk, and
     into the flesh of your children, your lover, your mother, into your own
     flesh? How much worse would the damage have to get? Would you resist? If
     there existed a resistance movement, would you join it?

     On 11/16/11 7:42 PM, Victoria Allen wrote:

       WHOA.
       Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       From: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
       Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
       Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:38:01 -0600
       To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
       ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
       Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
       Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
       CODE
       New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
       agent.

       There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green
       Resistance. They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical
       named Lierre Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance:
       Strategy to Save the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it.
       The movement advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to
       reach their eco goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla
       tactics to defeat current institutions when it comes to the
       environment. Whether anyone in the Fed or elsewhere classifies this
       group as eco-terror or not, I don't know, but they are nothing but and
       should be watched.

       http://deepgreenresistance.org/

       The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
       hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
       not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on
       Nov. 5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on 
       Nov. 4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and
       Deep Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the
       night. As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off
       71. The only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They
       have started a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make
       their base out there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says
       they told him that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park
       officials can't make them leave. These Deep Green people worry me.
       When my Occupy people refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\",
       that bothers me, because these Occupy people will tolerate just about
       anything.

       I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
       complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and
       ear open for anything they may plan for the complex.

       Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
       document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
       Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
       Americans.

       http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

       So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is
       focused on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be
       the ultimate outcome.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-17 14:51:22",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1984023_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
1996531,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1996531_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2000103,"Re: [alpha] G3* - PAKISTAN/MIL - 19 brigadiers promoted to major
	generals
","   We have a source among these 19 and he is a rising star within the
   hierarchy and is seen as having a really good shot at the top job.

   On 8/10/11 9:53 AM, Benjamin Preisler wrote:

     19 brigadiers promoted to major generals
     http://www.geo.tv/8-10-2011/84810.htm

      Updated at: 1335 PST,  Wednesday, August 10, 2011
     19 brigadiers promoted to major generals RAWALPINDI: The Pakistan Army
     Promotion Board approved the promotion of 19 brigadiers to the rank of
     major general on Wednesday, Geo News reported.

     The decision was made at the promotion board meeting held at the General
     Headquarters in Rawalpindi chaired by Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq
     Pervez Kayani. All corps commanders, principal staff officers and senior
     army officials were also present in the meeting.

     The names of 19 brigadiers who were promoted to major general include:
     Umar Durrani, Ahmed Mahmood, Tariq Masood, Tahir Javed, Nazir Butt,
     Mazhar Saleem, Mohammad Jaffar, Najamul Hasan, Ghulam Qamar, Ali Abbas,
     Amir Riaz, Abid Rafeeq, Asif Khatak, Jameel Rehmat, Saleem Raza, Malik
     Abbas, Syed Badshah Hussain, Shahab Naqvi and M. Junaid.

     19 brigadiers promoted to major generals
     Published: August 10, 2011

     http://tribune.com.pk/story/228284/19-brigadiers-promoted-to-major-generals/

     RAWALPINDI: The Pakistan Army Promotion Board approved the elevation of
     19 brigadiers to the rank of major general on Wednesday.

     The decision was made at the promotion board meeting held at the General
     Headquarters in Rawalpindi.

     The meeting was headed by Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez
     Kayani and attended by all corps commanders, principal staff officers
     and senior army officials.

     After the two day meeting, the names of 19 brigadiers who will be
     promoted to the rank of major general, were finally approved today.

     19 Brigadier promoted to rank of Major General
     RAWALPINDI - 10th August 2011 (8 hours ago)
     By APP
     http://www.aaj.tv/2011/08/19-brigadiers-promoted-to-major-generals/
     The selection board for promotion of brigadier to the rank of major
     general approved promotions of 19 brigadiers of different arms and
     services of Pakistan Army.

     The decision was made at the promotion board meeting held at the General
     Headquarters in Rawalpindi.

     The meeting was headed by Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez
     Kayani and attended by all corps commanders, principal staff officers
     and senior army officials.

     According to well-placed sources here on Wednesday, those officers who
     have been promoted include, Brig Umar Durrani, Brig. Ahmed Mehmood, Brig
     Tariq Masood, Brig. Tahir Javed, Brig. Nazir Butt, Brig. Mazhar Saleem,
     Brig. Muhammad Jafar, Brig. Najam ul Hassan, Brig. Ghulam Qamar, Brig.
     Ali Abbas, Brig. Aamir Riaz, Brig. Abid Rafique, Brig Asif Khattak,
     Brig. Jamil Rehmat Vance, Brig. Ali Raza, Brig. Malik Abbas, Brig. Syed
     Badshah Hussain, Brig. Shahab Naqvi and Brig. M. Junaid.

         19 brigadiers promoted to major generals
     http://www.pakwatan.com/latest_news1.php?id=2744
     10/08/11  RAWALPINDI -The Pakistan Army Promotion Board approved the
     elevation of 19 brigadiers to the rank of major general on Wednesday.

     The decision was made at the promotion board meeting held at the General
     Headquarters in Rawalpindi.

     The meeting was headed by Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Pervez
     Kayani and attended by all corps commanders, principal staff officers
     and senior army officials.

     After the two day meeting, the names of 19 brigadiers who will be
     promoted to the rank of major general, were finally approved today.

     19 brigadiers who promoted to the rank of major general are Umar
     Durrani, Tariq Masood, Ahmed Mahmood, Tahir jawed, Nazir Batt, Mazhar
     Saleem, Amir Riaz, Najam ul Hassan, Muhammad Jafar, Ali Abbas, Malik
     Abbas, Malik Badshah Hussain, Shahab Naqvi, M. Junaid, Ghulam Qamar,
     Abid Rafiq, Asif Khatak, Saleem Raza and Jameel Rehmat.

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19
","2011-08-10 23:06:21",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2000103_re-alpha-g3-pakistan-mil-19-brigadiers-promoted-to-major.html","bokhari@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2009805,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
","   this dude really gives the impression that Moscow calls the shots in Kiev

   so basically, Med gets pissed b/c Timo is blowing Putin and not him, so he
   whines to Putin and says drop the B and get behind Yanu like me. Putin
   says fine, Yanu gets excited and oversteps his boundaries, and now Putin
   is like fix this shit Med and Med is like okay, but we dont know what Med
   is actually gonna do to slap Yanu around

   so what's the couterargument to this? Does Russia really have this much
   influence over the situation?  this is something we need to address in
   ukraine reassessment

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111

   CODE: UA111
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   HANDLER: Lauren

    

   Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
   But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
   this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
   begin with.

    

   You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
   power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
   Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
   solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
   Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
   easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
   her in trouble and arrested.

    

   But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
   respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
   made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
   deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
   Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
   the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
   military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
   it had been pushing for.

    

   So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
   the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
   to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
   demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.

    

   Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
   to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
   against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
   will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-14 20:55:23",1,"2012-02-28 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2009805_re-alpha-insight-ukraine-moscow-kiev-spat-ua111-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2163407,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
 CODE
","   It might sound strange, but some of the most radical deep ecology people
   actually believe that there are too many people on the earth and that
   radical steps must be taken to reduce the population and save the earth.
    This strain of deep ecology is a clear reflection of the way the movement
   was heavily influenced by people like Martin Heidegger who were also
   committed to Nazism. Yes, Nazis were radical environmentalists.....
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:08:31 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Jesus I spent a couple of hours researching these guys - weird is an
   understatement. Apparently they met yesterday a couple of blocks away from
   my house to consolidate their leadership, go through basic indoctrination
   and plan more events. As far as I can tell, the Austin chapter is not
   nearly as radical as the central Lierre Keith DGR whose website is a
   treasure trove of incitment to passive resistance, blowing up energy
   infra, basic counter intel and legal guidance.

   Their ideology seems to be a mix of hardcore environmentalism, anarchism,
   radical feminism and the general notion that we need to go back living
   sustainably like the american indians by blowing up every pipeline and
   cell tower on the planet. Unlike the central DGR, Austin DGR doesn't seem
   to have defined targets and goals (their meeting yesterday was a
   brainstorming session on what radical environmentalism means in Austin).

   just a few nice quotes from their central website:

   The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power
   with as much personal integrity as possible; it is to dismantle those
   systems.

   What would we do if Nazis had invaded, and they were vacuuming the oceans,
   scalping native forests, damming every river, changing the climate, and
   putting carcinogens into every mother's breast milk, and into the flesh of
   your children, your lover, your mother, into your own flesh? How much
   worse would the damage have to get? Would you resist? If there existed a
   resistance movement, would you join it?

   On 11/16/11 7:42 PM, Victoria Allen wrote:

     WHOA.
     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
     Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:38:01 -0600
     To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
     ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
     Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
     CODE
     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-17 14:01:00",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2163407_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2178592,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2178592_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2197980,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
 CODE
","   It might sound strange, but some of the most radical deep ecology people
   actually believe that there are too many people on the earth and that
   radical steps must be taken to reduce the population and save the earth.
    This strain of deep ecology is a clear reflection of the way the movement
   was heavily influenced by people like Martin Heidegger who were also
   committed to Nazism. Yes, Nazis were radical environmentalists.....
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:08:31 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Jesus I spent a couple of hours researching these guys - weird is an
   understatement. Apparently they met yesterday a couple of blocks away from
   my house to consolidate their leadership, go through basic indoctrination
   and plan more events. As far as I can tell, the Austin chapter is not
   nearly as radical as the central Lierre Keith DGR whose website is a
   treasure trove of incitment to passive resistance, blowing up energy
   infra, basic counter intel and legal guidance.

   Their ideology seems to be a mix of hardcore environmentalism, anarchism,
   radical feminism and the general notion that we need to go back living
   sustainably like the american indians by blowing up every pipeline and
   cell tower on the planet. Unlike the central DGR, Austin DGR doesn't seem
   to have defined targets and goals (their meeting yesterday was a
   brainstorming session on what radical environmentalism means in Austin).

   just a few nice quotes from their central website:

   The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power
   with as much personal integrity as possible; it is to dismantle those
   systems.

   What would we do if Nazis had invaded, and they were vacuuming the oceans,
   scalping native forests, damming every river, changing the climate, and
   putting carcinogens into every mother's breast milk, and into the flesh of
   your children, your lover, your mother, into your own flesh? How much
   worse would the damage have to get? Would you resist? If there existed a
   resistance movement, would you join it?

   On 11/16/11 7:42 PM, Victoria Allen wrote:

     WHOA.
     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
     Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:38:01 -0600
     To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
     ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
     Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
     CODE
     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-17 14:01:00",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2197980_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2237322,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2237322_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2237366,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
	CODE
","   Agree
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:59:46 -0600 (CST)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>; Korena Zucha<zucha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   I'll bet cash they are connected to the Austin guys busted for the DNC
   plot plus some of the Austin Earth First jabronis. 
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:51:44 -0600
   To: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>, Alpha List
   <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Have we seen Deep Green Resistance carry-out acts of violence in the
   past? 

   On 11/16/2011 6:38 PM, Korena Zucha wrote:

     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.
","2011-11-18 21:17:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2237366_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2272858,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
 CODE
","   It might sound strange, but some of the most radical deep ecology people
   actually believe that there are too many people on the earth and that
   radical steps must be taken to reduce the population and save the earth.
    This strain of deep ecology is a clear reflection of the way the movement
   was heavily influenced by people like Martin Heidegger who were also
   committed to Nazism. Yes, Nazis were radical environmentalists.....
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:08:31 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Jesus I spent a couple of hours researching these guys - weird is an
   understatement. Apparently they met yesterday a couple of blocks away from
   my house to consolidate their leadership, go through basic indoctrination
   and plan more events. As far as I can tell, the Austin chapter is not
   nearly as radical as the central Lierre Keith DGR whose website is a
   treasure trove of incitment to passive resistance, blowing up energy
   infra, basic counter intel and legal guidance.

   Their ideology seems to be a mix of hardcore environmentalism, anarchism,
   radical feminism and the general notion that we need to go back living
   sustainably like the american indians by blowing up every pipeline and
   cell tower on the planet. Unlike the central DGR, Austin DGR doesn't seem
   to have defined targets and goals (their meeting yesterday was a
   brainstorming session on what radical environmentalism means in Austin).

   just a few nice quotes from their central website:

   The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power
   with as much personal integrity as possible; it is to dismantle those
   systems.

   What would we do if Nazis had invaded, and they were vacuuming the oceans,
   scalping native forests, damming every river, changing the climate, and
   putting carcinogens into every mother's breast milk, and into the flesh of
   your children, your lover, your mother, into your own flesh? How much
   worse would the damage have to get? Would you resist? If there existed a
   resistance movement, would you join it?

   On 11/16/11 7:42 PM, Victoria Allen wrote:

     WHOA.
     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
     Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:38:01 -0600
     To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
     ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
     Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
     CODE
     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-17 14:01:00",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2272858_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2283472,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
","   this dude really gives the impression that Moscow calls the shots in Kiev

   so basically, Med gets pissed b/c Timo is blowing Putin and not him, so he
   whines to Putin and says drop the B and get behind Yanu like me. Putin
   says fine, Yanu gets excited and oversteps his boundaries, and now Putin
   is like fix this shit Med and Med is like okay, but we dont know what Med
   is actually gonna do to slap Yanu around

   so what's the couterargument to this? Does Russia really have this much
   influence over the situation?  this is something we need to address in
   ukraine reassessment

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111

   CODE: UA111
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   HANDLER: Lauren

    

   Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
   But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
   this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
   begin with.

    

   You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
   power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
   Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
   solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
   Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
   easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
   her in trouble and arrested.

    

   But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
   respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
   made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
   deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
   Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
   the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
   military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
   it had been pushing for.

    

   So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
   the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
   to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
   demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.

    

   Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
   to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
   against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
   will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-14 20:55:23",1,"2012-02-28 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2283472_re-alpha-insight-ukraine-moscow-kiev-spat-ua111-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2287011,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
	CODE
","   Agree
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:59:46 -0600 (CST)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>; Korena Zucha<zucha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   I'll bet cash they are connected to the Austin guys busted for the DNC
   plot plus some of the Austin Earth First jabronis. 
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:51:44 -0600
   To: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>, Alpha List
   <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Have we seen Deep Green Resistance carry-out acts of violence in the
   past? 

   On 11/16/2011 6:38 PM, Korena Zucha wrote:

     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.
","2011-11-18 21:17:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2287011_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2312421,"Re: Fwd: Labor Day Review of Where We Are
","   hey. thanks. yeah... i read this. kind of amazing. i fully intend to stage
   a hostile takeover over of the board with james brown after morenz gets
   tased by fred in a dark stairwell.

   but... really, thanks for looking out for us. i can say without feeling
   like a suckup that i'm glad to be here regardless of pay, even if my
   mother-in-law called me \"an unpaid apprentice.\"

   kindest regards,
   phillip d. orchard

   word apprentice
   geography enthusiast
   keynesian
   canadian
   university of texas at austin bachelors of science of journalism of class
   of 2005
   rose bowl sideline stander
   hemophiliac
   512.574.6964

   On 9/6/11 7:41 PM, Brad Foster wrote:

     Hey you two, don't know if you saw this, but potentially, this is good
     news for you. Our CEO is basically saying we need to hire more people,
     including in the publishing side (the side you're on). Look at the parts
     I highlighted below. I know ya'll want a job, and although there are
     never any guarantees, it is looking pretty good for yall if you work
     hard as an intern this semester and make good friends with Maverick and
     Jenna (which is pretty damn easy, just be a nice, fun person and a
     diligent worker.) I am not the smartest cat in the sandbox, but I showed
     up as an intern everyday and showed eagerness to learn and to work, and
     I got rewarded for it. Just don't want ya'll to be discouraged by the
     lack of pay (my offer to take yall interns out for lunch sometime still
     stands, you deserve more appreciation) at the moment, even though it's
     annoying. Everyone started where you were at at some point. That is how
     the process works.
     *I never sent you this email. Don't mention it*
     BTW, heres the long version of my signature for your entertainment:
     Brad Foster
     Africa Monitor
     Operations Center Officer
     Writer
     STRATFOR
     512.944.4909

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"George Friedman\" <gfriedman@stratfor.com>
     To: \"allstratfor\" <allstratfor@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Monday, September 5, 2011 2:55:16 PM
     Subject: Labor Day Review of Where We Are

     THIS IS FOR INTERNAL STRATFOR USE ONLY. DO NOT SHARE THIS DOCUMENT OR
     DISCUSS IT OUTSIDE OF STRATFOR.

      

      

      

     I hope you've all had a great Labor Day Weekend. This Labor Day marks a
     turning point in Stratfor's history, and I wanted to share my thoughts
     with you and some plans. It used to be, not so long ago, that we were so
     small that information flowed to all hands by itself.  It is hard for me
     to recognize sometimes that this is no longer true, so I will provide an
     extensive review of where we are and what is coming.  Some of this will
     be old hat to some of you; some of this will be new.  This is an attempt
     to start getting everyone on the same page. 

      

     Historically, Stratfor was unique in a number of ways. First, we
     accepted no advertising. Second, we charged for our subscriptions.
     Finally, we were revenue driven. We build the company from our
     revenues.  This kept us independent, it kept us free to experiment-and
     at times fail, it kept us tight. We were reaching a point where we our
     revenues did not keep up with our needs and market opportunities.

      

     Shea Morenz provided us with two opportunities.  First, he made an
     investment in Stratfor designed to give us the capital needed to build
     our staff and our marketing.  Second, he proposed a new venture,
     StratCap, which would allow us to utilize the intelligence we were
     gathering about the world in a new but related venue-an investment fund.
     Where we had previously advised other hedge funds. We would now have our
     own, itself fully funded by Shea.  Shea invested over $2 million in
     Stratfor and more in StratCap. In return he took a seat on Stratfor's
     board and a minority position in Stratfor, whose control remains in
     Don's and my hands.  It was a good deal for Stratfor, a good deal for
     StratCap, and since the deal closed officially on August 1, we now have
     the task of doing what we all want-building Stratfor and StratCap.

      

     Our cash position is not spectacular by any means, but we have the
     resources to build the kind of company we want, when that investment is
     combined with our revenues.  With cash under control we need to address
     the next problem-people. We all are doing more than our share to keep
     things going.  In some ways that good but it can be overdone, and we are
     overdoing it throughout the company.  Our job now is to expand the
     team.  Money is one element of that, but relieving the pressure we are
     under in a way increases the pressure, because we have to recruit and
     train new people. So it gets harder before it gets easier, and that's
     the point we are at.

      

     Let's divide our departments into two groups.  There are those
     departments that must train their own people, particularly in
     intelligence beyond the normal training needed by new employees.  We do
     that because no one thinks of the world like Stratfor, and that means
     that we can't hire people from other organizations, or at least not
     without a major training programming, which in our experience lasts up
     to two years.  Then there are departments that don't have this burden
     and that can hire people readily from other organizations.  Both groups
     of departments must grow and train, but the burden of training is much
     heavier in the Intelligence departments that train their staff from the
     bottom up than on other departments.  It is important for everyone to
     understand this distinction.  It is not that people in Intelligence are
     more important or more valuable than those in other departments.  It
     just means they face different problems in growing and that if they
     don't grow, other things can't happen.

      

     Now let's consider the tasks ahead.  First and foremost-and always first
     and foremost-we must be the world's leading private intelligence
     organization (and one of the finest intelligence organizations, period)
     and we must sell our intelligence through publishing.  Our current staff
     has done an outstanding job, but they are thin and sometimes we are
     weak.  We must do better in economics, and we must make certain that no
     AOR depends on only one person. There are lots of things that are
     needed. 

      

     Second, we are committed to supporting StratCap, a private fund that
     will begin operations some time this coming spring. What StratCap will
     do is use our Stratfor's intelligence and analysis to trade in a range
     of geopolitical instruments, particularly government bonds, currency and
     the like in the world's emerging markets.  Shea Morenz initiated this
     idea and leads it.  At the root of StratCap is a simple idea: Stratfor
     should put its money where its mouth is.  It does not conflict with
     Stratfor, but is an extension of it.

      

     Do not think of StratCap as an outside organization.  It will be
     integral to Stratfor, in the sense that much of the intelligence we are
     developing is useful to Stratcap as well as Stratfor.  The
     organizational and legal distinctions are real and important, but
     StratCap is linked to Stratfor intellectually and contractually.  It
     will be useful to you if, for the sake of convenience, you think of it
     as another aspect of Stratfor and Shea as another executive in
     Stratfor. 

      

     Let me also add that it is our commitment that all our team will benefit
     if StratCap is successful through some mechanism to be defined. This
     isn't an attempt to get you to work harder for the same money.  But that
     discussion must wait until the legal and administrative relationships of
     StratCap and its relation to Stratfor are worked out and reviewed by
     something called \"compliance officers,\" people who make certain that we
     do not violate any regulations. 

      

     From that point of view, StratCap is something under construction.  You
     can see Shea Morenz hammering away building it in the corner office he
     took from Darryl. In the world of StratCap, corner offices are marketing
     tools.  This points to the fact that StratCap will be building its own
     staff and they come from a different world from Stratfor with a
     different culture.  That said, we have a great deal to learn from
     StratCap to strengthen Stratfor's understanding of economics and it has
     much to learn from us.  We are already working on mock portfolios and
     trades, testing our skills.  Kendra, Korena, Melissa, Jen, Peter,
     Meredith and myself are all involved in this along with Shea and
     Alfredo, a trader that makes us easy to understand compared to him. It's
     going pretty well in fact, but supporting StratCap will be a cultural
     and intellectual challenge.  It's important now to recognize that it is
     already here, growing and we will accommodate to it and it to us.

      

     I want to emphasize is that there is neither a legal, intellectual nor
     moral tension between Stratfor and StratCap.  We will continue to
     publish what we think is true.  StratCap is interested in our broad
     ideas but mostly in the obscure nuggets picked up by intelligence that
     are usually of little interest to our general readers.  My pledge to you
     and our readers is that our publication will remain untouched by
     StratCap-because they are merely different sides of the same coin,
     intelligence.

      

     We have also been asked to help the United States Marine Corps and other
     government intelligence organizations to teach them how Stratfor does
     what it does, and train them in becoming government Stratfors. We are
     beginning this project by preparing a three-year forecast for the
     Commandant of the Corps.  This is a double honor for us.  First, the
     professional intelligence community is acknowledging us as being the
     gold standard of intelligence.  Second, we are being asked to use our
     honest and unhedged views to support what is for Stratfor-an American
     company-its homeland.  Again, as with StratCap, there is no tension. We
     will tell the U.S. government precisely what we tell our readers and we
     think ourselves.  Our first lesson to the government is that
     intelligence organizations exist to make decision makers uncomfortable,
     not to make them feel better about their decisions. I didn't come this
     far to compromise on that. 

      

     Add to this that the fact that Turkish Chamber of Commerce (not its name
     but close enough; its name is TUSIAD) asked us to preside over their
     40th anniversary celebration, and that the Turkish Foreign Minister and
     Energy Minister will speak at the event, and you can see both our global
     recognition and our commitment to speak the same words to every country.
     We can serve the world from the same platform.

      

     So think about it.  We have three triumphs.  First, our publication is
     now read by almost 300,000 people (counting our corporate accounts).  We
     are a major force around the world.  Second, Shea-a guy who has played
     with the big boys at Goldman Sachs, asked us to play in the majors with
     him.  Third, the USMC has asked for our help, and with them others in
     the defense community.  These are three validations of us that are
     precious to me.

      

     Obviously, there is no way in the world that we can do all these
     things-plus the endless little projects that we must do all the
     time-with the staff we have.  And given that we take two years to train
     new analysts, and all of this is on us now-we have an urgent problem. 
     We can't punt opportunities at hand and continue at our current size.
     Nor can we easily expand.  So we will therefore expand with difficulty. 
     There is no choice.  Our Analyst Development Program is the means where
     we train people and find new analysts as well as find some staff for
     publishing (watch officers, monitors, operations center and writers all
     under Jenna Colley). We will have the largest group of ADPs ever this
     fall, starting next week.  About 13 people at last count will be joining
     us.  This is a huge percentage of the number of analysts on staff.
     Ideally all will work out well and our crisis will be over.  That's
     unlikely but our crisis will be mitigated by January 1. Doing this will
     put a huge burden on Intelligence, who must do their work and also train
     these people, but there is no choice.  This is the year when we break
     out.  I promise to work side by side with the team in training and
     growing he organization.  I also promise that if we succeed, we will
     become one of the most significant and prestigious foreign policy
     publications in the world-and those that made it happen will be known. 
     I know there are questions about by-lines. You know my hesitation, but
     we will figure out together someway to make sure that the glory is
     shared.

      

     Intelligence is divided into three parts.  There is Strategic
     Intelligence (under Rodger assisted by Reva) that is organized
     geographically.  There is Tactical Intelligence (under Stick, assisted
     by Nate Hughes) that is organized thematically-organized crime,
     cyber-warfare, military, terrorism, security, financial flows, supply
     chain and so on.  There is then intelligence gathering, under Meredith,
     assisted by Jen Richmond that is building sources from around the
     world.  All of them must grow dramatically.  The first two will grow
     mostly out of the ADP pool. The latter will be done by extensive work in
     the field.  But it is the Writers Group that is making the most
     impressive evolution.  Under Jenna (and Tim French and Maverick) it has
     moved into the heart of intelligence, writing as well as editing. 
     Everyone should watch this team. They are pioneering things the world
     hasn't seen yet. Along with Watch Officers, monitors and the operations
     center, this unit is translating intelligence into product with
     increasing effectiveness.  It is now organizationally mature and ready
     to both grow and sustain the growth of Intelligence.

      

     This growth will put a tremendous strain on other departments. Leticia
     has done a tremendous job in Human Resources, but the job has grown much
     greater than she can possibly manage.  Just the process of getting visas
     for new ADPs is overwhelming, and at least half of these come from other
     countries.  We have selected an HR consulting firm to support her in the
     coming months and other solutions will be found to sustain this. HR will
     become more effective in the next months. In addition, we are retaining
     a law firm to create a policy for Stratfor on Foreign Corrupt Practices
     Act.  I don't plan to do the perp walk and I don't want anyone here
     doing it either.  We need some clear guidelines on the law and are
     getting them, particularly as we ramp our intelligence capability.
     Similarly finance has kept us all going and similarly it has to expand,
     although it is a shade less pressured than HR is.

      

     IT faces a huge challenge.  Traditional IT organizations focus on the
     development of new capabilities for a company and sustaining complex
     systems. At Stratfor, the focus must also be on sustaining basic systems
     like phones, email, configuring and fixing laptops and cell phones and
     so on-the basic tools that make our work possible and which are a
     particular challenge in a global company operating 24-7.  That gives our
     IT department a different shape and tempo than exists in other
     companies. With this class of ADPs, 24-7 will become very real.  IT is
     under pressure to maintain its focus on improving the web site and
     corporate systems but has a special and intense mission of supporting a
     growing, global company at the ground level, and the pressure is never
     going to be greater than now with all the new people coming on board in
     all departments. Creating an IT department that fits our peculiar needs
     will be Frank's challenge.

      

     I want to also point to two departments that are performing extremely
     well.  Customer Service at Stratfor is among the best in the business. 
     We daily get emails praising their work. John Gibbons has done an
     amazing job keeping this going.  More subscribers mean more customer
     service of course.

      

     Also to be mentioned is he on-line marketing team who has just done
     something very impressive. There is usually a slump in subscriptions
     after a Red Alert, and there was one, but in a matter of weeks they
     pitched in and turned it around with some strange and wonderful
     campaigns.  They have broken their forecast in spite of a pretty quiet
     world.  Its amazing the kind of ads that work!

      

     Let's turn to marketing and sales and the future.  Our readership is now
     about 5 percent of the Economist when we exclude corporate (not sure why
     we exclude corporate but that's what we do).  That means that we have
     probably saturated a good part of the early adopters market-the early
     adopters who love us and have built us-and put up with our weaknesses.
     It's kind of like people who supported Apple in its dark days, putting
     up with promising but not yet mature computers.  If you haven't read,
     \"Crossing the Chasm,\" a rare business book that is actually helpful,
     please take a look at it.  It will explain much of what we are trying to
     achieve in marketing.

      

     We have no choice but to grow.  If we stay this size someone larger,
     with deep pockets will notice the market we have created and come in
     after us.  We won't be able to compete.  The only protection is market
     share, to be so dominant a force in the market that no one challenges us
     and our own deep pockets.  For this we must grow revenue and that means
     readership.  The place we must grow is in the mainstream.  I don't mean
     by mainstream CNN. I mean readers who are interested in what we have,
     but aren't fanatics, groupies and wannabes.  These people have higher
     standards in production values, and less forgiveness for mistakes. They
     don't buy the mystique.  They buy the publication. That's where most of
     our customers are and where we have to go.

      

     Obviously this is one of the reasons we need more people.  It is also
     the reason we must deliver in new ways.  Grant Perry and his team are
     looking at ways to create a unique, Stratfor video culture. I see this
     myself as consisting of much longer and serious conversations among
     analysts moderated by an anchor, documentaries, briefings. Perhaps our
     Sitreps should all be delivered via video and audio (there is I think
     huge demand for audio products in cars, or so many people tell me).  All
     of this will evolve in unexpected directions under Grant, Colin, Brian,
     Andrew and others who will join them. This is part of our own evolution
     into the mainstream, on our own terms, with our own voice. What you see
     above, by the way, are simply my own ideas, not fully thought out. 
     Whatever Grant and his team produce will be uniquely Stratfor.

      

     Other than that we shall see.  What markets we will enter, and how we
     enter them is not yet known. We do know that the current Stratfor
     product, however enhanced, will be our only offering.  We will not be
     developing new products for markets. 

      

     We have hired a consultant, Mark Stacey, who will guide this process. 
     We will also be bringing in a consulting firm to do survey research and
     interviews to teach us more about our current readers, readers who won't
     buy us, and readers who would buy us if they had heard of us.  Our
     choice was between hiring staff to give us a plan or hiring consultants
     to give us a plan and then hiring permanent staff to execute it.  The
     latter is the safest-we avoid a staff without the skill to do what we
     need whom instead craft a plan to do what they already know.  In
     addition to this initiative, we are participating in the University of
     Texas Business School program where a team of graduate students will
     essentially parallel the work of our outside consultants, giving us a
     double check on the data. 

      

     The goal here is to have a marketing and sales plan in place for
     execution on January 1.  From where I sit, the biggest challenge we have
     is that too many people have never heard of us.  At a meeting I can
     encounter someone who has subscribed for years and next to him is a
     person in the same industry that has never heard of us.  It is difficult
     selling to people who have never heard of us.  So our challenge-before
     trying to sell to them-is to increase awareness of who we are.  This is
     called branding and it's different from selling.  It is the precursor. 
     We will start with branding in January. That means there will be
     marketing people around asking many questions in the coming months,
     frequently the same ones. Please work with all of them.  In the end, we
     will have a plan with a high likelihood of success.

      

     Parallel to all of this, the executives (without Don, Steve Feldhaus or
     myself-the board members) are going through a planning process of their
     own, coordinated by Frank Ginac.  Not being on it (and not wanting to be
     informed of what is going on as there should be yet another set of eyes
     on things other than mine) I can't tell you what they are doing. 
     However, the deal we have on this is that as CEO, I will proceed with
     implementing my own plans that I've outlined here, and will consider
     their proposals when I see them. If the decision point is past when they
     make their recommendation on a subject, the recommendation will not be
     considered.  If they come in with recommendations before decision
     points, their recommendations will be taken very seriously.  This allows
     the company to move forward and an alternative planning model to be
     brought on line when it is ready.

      

     The company has become too large and complex for any one person to know
     what is going on.  I am moving (with difficulty) from the role of an
     early entrepreneur, knowing everything going on and getting involved in
     it, to the CEO of a company at the inflexion point.   The inflexion
     point is the point all companies dream of and few achieve-when they
     start really taking off.  This is a great point and a dangerous one. 
     Unless the company changes the way it does things, inflexion aborts.  I
     am trying to change what I do.

      

     There are some things that have to remain my responsibility.  Building
     Intelligence and publishing and particularly training new staff are
     things that I should oversee.  Building the intelligence capabilities of
     the company along with Meredith is also my responsibility.  Creating new
     models to support Stratcap and helping to train Stratcap in the
     capabilities of Stratfor is mine. Overseeing our training of the Marine
     Corps is something I want to do.  Kendra will be my deputy for this, but
     this leaves a large load on me.

      

     Along with this, for better or worse, I am the public face of Stratfor. 
     My speeches and travels build the brand, create intelligence
     opportunities, and give me a clearer vision of how the world works.  I
     will be doing a lot of traveling to do these things, and I will combine
     them with the Geopolitical Journeys concept that seems to have hit a
     nerve.  During my travels I will be doing articles, videos and writing a
     book based on those journeys, on the world's borderlands.  Between that
     and making contacts for Stratfor and StratCap, I will be busy.

      

     Along with that load is going to be setting the broad direction of the
     company.  Through long and sometimes painful experience I have learned
     that ultimate responsibility can be delegated but not abandoned.  It's
     an old military principle that applies here. I have a vision for
     Stratfor and while I will delegate, I will not turn over responsibility
     because I can't.

      

     That means that we will need an evolving management structure.  I've
     asked Don who is formally President of Stratfor to join Darryl in both
     the day to day management of the company and in what we still call \"the
     business side.\"  One day we will simply be one company, but right now we
     are still two sides of one company.  Don and Darryl will now manage that
     side, implementing our plans there.  I will not disappear, but become
     intermittent on daily management but deeply focused on intelligence.

      

     One of the other things I must do is prepare a succession plan.  In some
     parts that are well developed, I already have that plan.  In other
     parts, we have to build an organization to have a succession plan.  But
     it is my intention that Stratfor survive me (no, I'm not feeling poorly
     and can still kick your ass).  I want to build this into the world's
     finest intelligence service, private and free to speak its mind.  I see
     this as the most lasting contribution I can make, and I am serious about
     making sure Stratfor goes on.

      

     We are all at the inflexion point where the level of effort temporarily
     soars until new resources are brought on line.  They couldn't have been
     staged in earlier because there weren't resources available.  But now
     they can't wait, because the moment will pass and perhaps never return. 
     For everything there is a \"now.\"  This is now.

      

     I ask only one specific thing of all of you. If you don't understanding
     anything here; if you want to learn more; if something worries you and
     your boss can't clear it up, come directly to me. I will be available
     until the last week of September when I go with others to Turkey. 
     Please, please, please, do not engage in a round of paranoia or
     speculation based on lack of data.  Just set a time to see me and let's
     discuss it.  StratFantasy (a new term) is I really believe the greatest
     danger to success that we have face.

      

     This is a long review, but many have said they'd like to know where we
     are and what we are doing.  This is about as comprehensive as I can get.
     There will be more such reports.  There are no short versions about
     where we are and what we are doing.

      

      

     OH YES-THIS IS FOR INTERNAL STRATFOR USE ONLY. DO NOT SHARE THIS
     DOCUMENT OR DISCUSS IT OUTSIDE OF STRATFOR.

      

     --

     George Friedman

     Founder and CEO

     STRATFOR

     221 West 6th Street

     Suite 400

     Austin, Texas 78701

      

     Phone: 512-744-4319

     Fax: 512-744-4334

      
","2011-09-07 15:42:45",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2312421_re-fwd-labor-day-review-of-where-we-are-.html","phillip.orchard@stratfor.com","","brad.foster@stratfor.com,sophie.steiner@stratfor.com",""
2322484,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
	CODE
","   Agree
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:59:46 -0600 (CST)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>; Korena Zucha<zucha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   I'll bet cash they are connected to the Austin guys busted for the DNC
   plot plus some of the Austin Earth First jabronis. 
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:51:44 -0600
   To: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>, Alpha List
   <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Have we seen Deep Green Resistance carry-out acts of violence in the
   past? 

   On 11/16/2011 6:38 PM, Korena Zucha wrote:

     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.
","2011-11-18 21:17:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2322484_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2323700,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2323700_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2539287,"Re: PUBLIC CONFESSION -the Lunch on me? scandal
","   Ignore all following rules.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Adam Wagh <adam.wagh@stratfor.com>
   Sender: stratforaustin-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:28:35 -0500 (CDT)
   To: STRATFOR AUSTIN List<stratforaustin@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: STRATFOR AUSTIN List <stratforaustin@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: PUBLIC CONFESSION -the Lunch on me? scandal
   You have much to teach me Fred...Whats Fred's rule #1 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com>
   To: stratforaustin@stratfor.com
   Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 2:25:51 PM
   Subject: Re: PUBLIC CONFESSION -the Lunch on me? scandal

   You ate the bait.  

   Fred's rule # 2 -

   Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations. 

   On 8/30/2011 2:21 PM, Adam Wagh wrote:

     ATTENTION ALL - 
     Unfortunately, I think the culprit might be me. I usually keep a spare
     lunch in the freezer in case i forget to grab one before I leave the
     house (most often Amy's products including the pesto tortellini) and I
     did eat some today thinking it was my spare. I will of course replace
     the meal I ate, and try to be much more careful in the future. SORRY
     ROB!! 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Rob Bassetti\" <bassetti@stratfor.com>
     To: \"STRATFOR AUSTIN List\" <stratforaustin@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 1:42:59 PM
     Subject: Lunch on me?

     Now that I've got your attention, someone has taken the lunch that I
     brought in (Amy's Pesto Tortellini bowl in freezer).  A good rule of
     thumb regarding food is that you do not take and consume what you didn't
     purchase.  That's commonly known as stealing.

     Rob

     --
     Rob Bassetti
     STRATFOR
     Finance Department
     512-744-4081
     bassetti@stratfor.com
","2011-08-30 21:37:18",1,"2012-02-27 12:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2539287_re-public-confession-the-lunch-on-me-scandal-.html","friedman@att.blackberry.net","mailto:stratforaustin@stratfor.com","Stratforaustin@stratfor.com",""
2557319,"[Eurasia] source coding
","   Hey Team,  
   As we're coding our sources, I wanted to make sure we weren't overlapping
   coding...
   Previously, I was 101-299 numbers. And others were 300 or 500s... meaning
   starting with the odd #s.
   If I go over 299 (my Russia sources in a few years just may as I'm at 188
   already). Then I may count backwards from 101.
   Anyway, I have some overarching sources that are part of more than one
   country... so I have sources as:
   CA-FSU - for Central Asia
   EU - for EU states/European states
   Anyway, lemme know if you have any issues with all of this. We need to be
   on the same page.
   Go Team!
   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-01 03:19:21",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2557319_-eurasia-source-coding-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","mailto:eurasia@stratfor.com","eurasia@stratfor.com",""
2600489,"[alpha] Fwd: Fwd: Fwd: ATFE, DHS, EPIC, FBI (UNCLASSIFIED)
"," >


 --
 Michael Wilson
 Director of Watch Officer Group, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 michael.wilson@stratfor.com
","2011-06-28 17:46:55",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2600489_-alpha-fwd-fwd-fwd-atfe-dhs-epic-fbi-unclassified-.html","michael.wilson@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com","attach/10/10382_Attached Message Part
attach/10/10383_ATFE Firearms Trafficking Utah to Venezuela.pdf
attach/10/10384_Attached Message Part-16
attach/10/10385_DHS Mexican Fe.pdf
attach/10/10386_FMSO JRIC Lati.pdf
attach/10/10387_FBI Jihadist W.pdf
attach/10/10388_FBI Mexican Co.pdf
attach/10/10389_FBI A Popular .pdf
attach/10/10390_FBI Hempstead .pdf
attach/10/10391_FBI Illicit Dr.pdf
attach/10/10392_EPIC Bulletin EB11-44.pdf
attach/10/10393_FBI Identifica.pdf
attach/10/10394_FBI Burning of.pdf
attach/10/10395_FBI Sovereign Citizens and the Internet.pdf
attach/10/10396_FBI Identifica-1.pdf
attach/10/10397_FBI Hells Ange.pdf
attach/10/10398_FBI Gambino an.pdf
attach/10/10399_FBI Solicitati.pdf
attach/10/10400_FBI Cleveland .pdf"
2606228,"Re: [alpha] sourcing insight
","   I think you should make responsiveness a separate category. Like we do
   with our red, orange, yellow classifications during source list reviews.
   That is responsiveness/accessibility, and it is distinct from
   reliability. 
   From: Jennifer Richmond <richmond@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:05:28 -0500
   To: <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] sourcing insight
   As Stick said earlier, you can have a reliable source that is highly
   responsive that sometimes sends crap.  Item credibility is the place where
   you assess the information, and this changes from insight to insight. 
   Reliability is more about source responsiveness.  That said, and as Stick
   notes, reliability also speaks to the overall source's access to
   information as well as dependability.  In part some of this should also be
   addressed in the source description.

   We'll be fleshing these out a bit more in the next few weeks, and all
   suggestions are welcomed.

   On 7/29/11 2:51 PM, Kamran Bokhari wrote:

     My understanding of source reliability has always been the contact's
     personal reliability as a person who can provide accurate information.
     On 7/29/11 2:54 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

       Sending to the list since these are good questions.  My responses in
       red.

       On 7/29/11 1:48 PM, Allison Fedirka wrote:

         I have 2 questions on this item.
         SOURCE RELIABILITY: A-F, A being the best and F being the worst.
          this
         grades the turnaround time of this source in responding to requests

         1) If this is based solely on turn around time, do we have company
         standards for the letters.  Like A = a couple of hours, D = a couple
         of weeks, etc?  We do need to better identify what each letter
         means.  In the meantime, in my book A=within 24 hours, B=48 hours,
         C=a couple of days, D=over a week, F=lucky if we get a response
         2) Also I previously thought this item reflected both reliability in
         turn around time and also reliability to give good information.  So
         like if someone was obviously anti-chavez or exaggerates a lot, I
         would bump them down a bit since the insight should be taken with a
         grain of salt.  How do you want us to inform others of potential
         bias or questionable material?  In the description section? It is
         mainly addresses their reliability to respond.  ITEM CREDIBILITY is
         the place where we code the information.  In most cases this changes
         from insight to insight whereas SOURCE RELIABILITY is a little more
         static.  Some sources know nothing about politics but give excellent
         info on econ.  So, credibilty changes frequently even with the same
         source and one of the reasons why we need to keep up with the entire
         ID tags when sending in insight.  As to the last question, I usually
         make a note of their bias for a particular insight in the
         credibility section.  In the description section you can write out
         their personal biases - e.g. the dude only hangs with the wealthy so
         this insight is likely to be skewed towards elite perceptions, or
         something like that. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: \"Jennifer Richmond\" <richmond@stratfor.com>
         To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
         Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 1:41:39 PM
         Subject: [alpha] sourcing insight

         We've gotten lazy on insight source IDs again.  Not only do you need
         to
         put the source code in the subject line, but all of these categories
         need to be filled out for every single insight sent to the list.

         SOURCE: code
         ATTRIBUTION: this is what we should say if we use this info in a
         publication, e.g. STRATFOR source/source in the medical
         industry/source
         on the ground, etc
         SOURCE DESCRIPTION: this is where we put the more concrete details
         of
         the source for our internal consumption so we can better understand
         the
         source's background and ability to make the assessments in the
         insight
         PUBLICATION: Yes or no.  If you put yes it doesn't mean that we will
         publish it, but only that we can publish it.
         SOURCE RELIABILITY: A-F, A being the best and F being the worst.
          this
         grades the turnaround time of this source in responding to requests
         ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1-10, 1 being the best and 10 being the worst (we
         may
         change the range here in the future).  this changes a lot based on
         the
         info provided.  1 is \"you can take this to the bank\" and 10 would be
         an
         example of maybe - \"this is a totally ridiculous rumor but something
         that is spreading on the ground\"
         SPECIAL HANDLING: often this is \"none\" but it may be something like,
         \"if
         you use this we need to be sure not to mention the part about XXX in
         the
         publication\" or any other special notes
         SOURCE HANDLER: the person who can take follow-up questions and
         communicate with the source

         If you have any questions, concerns or suggestions, let me know.
          I'll
         be back in the office next Tues so if you want to discuss this
         process
         in person we can do so soon.  In the meantime, remember that every
         piece
         of insight needs this ENTIRE ID unless it is just something that you
         picked up off the ground from a source that you will likely not hear
         from again.  Even then, you should fill out the entire ID and in the
         SOURCE field simply say - n/a with a description on why we are not
         coding them.

         Jen
         PS: Also remember that is something is highly sensitive to send
         directly
         - not thru a WO - to the \"secure\" list.  Secure list insights still
         need
         the above ID tags.

         --
         Jennifer Richmond
         STRATFOR
         China Director
         Director of International Projects
         (512) 422-9335
         richmond@stratfor.com
         www.stratfor.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.comwww.stratfor.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.comwww.stratfor.com
","2011-07-29 22:08:01",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2606228_re-alpha-sourcing-insight-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2621778,"Re: [alpha] sourcing insight
","   You can stay on Alpha. 
   From: Marko Primorac <marko.primorac@stratfor.com>
   Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 10:30:35 -0500 (CDT)
   To: scott stewart <scott.stewart@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] sourcing insight
   Stick:

   I'm emailing IT right now to get me off Alpha / Secure just so you know.

   I'm not on Secure or Alpha List on Thunderbird / didn't even think about
   that once I got here reading Zimbra it didn't register until the thread
   below. I dropped the ball / take full responsibility.

   Emailing IT to get me off the list immediately.
   Sincerely,

   Marko Primorac
   Tactical Analyst
   marko.primorac@stratfor.com
   Cell: 011 385 99 885 1373

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"scott stewart\" <stewart@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 4:58:35 PM
   Subject: Re: [alpha] sourcing insight

   We need to change that.  A simple email to IT before a trip gets you off
   the list. 
   From: Kamran Bokhari <bokhari@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:51:42 -0400
   To: <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] sourcing insight
   Ok, but even when I have been outside the continent I have still been on
   secure. 
   On 7/29/11 4:03 PM, scott stewart wrote:

     Yeah. We don't consider Canada to really be overseas.  
     From: Kamran Bokhari <bokhari@stratfor.com>
     Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:49:34 -0400
     To: <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Re: [alpha] sourcing insight
     I have always been secure even though I am always overseas.

     On 7/29/11 2:59 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

       Ok, good question.

       The secure list is not supposed to have anyone overseas on it.  (And
       as a side note, if you are traveling overseas you need to get yourself
       off this list while out of the country.)  We have many WOs overseas
       and so when we send something to secure it is just one more way we are
       trying to protect sourcing by not having it sent over international
       wires (yes, of course, there are many ways that foreigners can access
       any insight sent from anywhere at anytime, but it is somewhat more
       secure when we email only within CONUS).  So either a source or
       insight that is highly sensitive needs to go to the secure list only,
       and that means that we send it in ourselves because the overseas WOs
       won't be able to pick it up.

       Alpha goes to analysts/writers (and the few others selected on this
       list) and not ADPs or Interns, including to analysts/writers overseas.

       On 7/29/11 1:50 PM, Lauren Goodrich wrote:

         your last line in the P.S.... said to send things directly to
         secure... I wanted to know if that meant only to secure or to alpha
         too.
         I think there is still some confusion over which list is which.
         On 7/29/11 1:47 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

           I don't understand your question.  This applies to both lists. 
           All sources need IDs (as mentioned in my PS - does that answer
           your question?).

           As to the question of sending from BBs, I definitely understand
           that issue.  When you return to your computer, please reply to the
           insight sent out with the full coding.  We need this info to
           really track insight and any changes over time.

           On 7/29/11 1:45 PM, Lauren Goodrich wrote:

             secure or alpha?

             On 7/29/11 1:41 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

 We've gotten lazy on insight source IDs again.  Not only do you need to
 put the source code in the subject line, but all of these categories
 need to be filled out for every single insight sent to the list.

 SOURCE: code
 ATTRIBUTION: this is what we should say if we use this info in a
 publication, e.g. STRATFOR source/source in the medical industry/source
 on the ground, etc
 SOURCE DESCRIPTION: this is where we put the more concrete details of
 the source for our internal consumption so we can better understand the
 source's background and ability to make the assessments in the insight
 PUBLICATION: Yes or no.  If you put yes it doesn't mean that we will
 publish it, but only that we can publish it.
 SOURCE RELIABILITY: A-F, A being the best and F being the worst.  this
 grades the turnaround time of this source in responding to requests
 ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1-10, 1 being the best and 10 being the worst (we may
 change the range here in the future).  this changes a lot based on the
 info provided.  1 is \"you can take this to the bank\" and 10 would be an
 example of maybe - \"this is a totally ridiculous rumor but something
 that is spreading on the ground\"
 SPECIAL HANDLING: often this is \"none\" but it may be something like, \"if
 you use this we need to be sure not to mention the part about XXX in the
 publication\" or any other special notes
 SOURCE HANDLER: the person who can take follow-up questions and
 communicate with the source

 If you have any questions, concerns or suggestions, let me know.  I'll
 be back in the office next Tues so if you want to discuss this process
 in person we can do so soon.  In the meantime, remember that every piece
 of insight needs this ENTIRE ID unless it is just something that you
 picked up off the ground from a source that you will likely not hear
 from again.  Even then, you should fill out the entire ID and in the
 SOURCE field simply say - n/a with a description on why we are not
 coding them.

 Jen
 PS: Also remember that is something is highly sensitive to send directly
 - not thru a WO - to the \"secure\" list.  Secure list insights still need
 the above ID tags.


             --
             Lauren Goodrich
             Senior Eurasia Analyst
             STRATFOR
             T: 512.744.4311
             F: 512.744.4334
             lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
             www.stratfor.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.comwww.stratfor.com

         --
         Lauren Goodrich
         Senior Eurasia Analyst
         STRATFOR
         T: 512.744.4311
         F: 512.744.4334
         lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
         www.stratfor.com

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.comwww.stratfor.com
","2011-08-01 18:00:24",1,"2012-03-01 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2621778_re-alpha-sourcing-insight-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","","marko.primorac@stratfor.com",""
2649190,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
","   this dude really gives the impression that Moscow calls the shots in Kiev

   so basically, Med gets pissed b/c Timo is blowing Putin and not him, so he
   whines to Putin and says drop the B and get behind Yanu like me. Putin
   says fine, Yanu gets excited and oversteps his boundaries, and now Putin
   is like fix this shit Med and Med is like okay, but we dont know what Med
   is actually gonna do to slap Yanu around

   so what's the couterargument to this? Does Russia really have this much
   influence over the situation?  this is something we need to address in
   ukraine reassessment

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111

   CODE: UA111
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   HANDLER: Lauren

    

   Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
   But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
   this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
   begin with.

    

   You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
   power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
   Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
   solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
   Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
   easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
   her in trouble and arrested.

    

   But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
   respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
   made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
   deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
   Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
   the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
   military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
   it had been pushing for.

    

   So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
   the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
   to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
   demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.

    

   Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
   to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
   against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
   will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-14 20:55:23",1,"2012-02-28 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2649190_re-alpha-insight-ukraine-moscow-kiev-spat-ua111-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2654712,"[alpha] =?utf-8?q?INSIGHT_-_CN65_Re=3A_CHINA/AUSTRALIA/ENERGY/GV_?=
 =?utf-8?q?-_Shell=2C_PetroChina=E2=80=99s_Arrow_Energy_Offers_=24540_Mill?=
 =?utf-8?q?ion_to_Acquire_Bow_Energy?=
","   **Asked source if we should care about this news.

   SOURCE: CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: A
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen
   The Consul-General said last week that gas was of great importance to
   them, as were all energy supplies, but gas particularly so.  There was the
   usual stuff concerning their environmental concerns, but he stressed that
   they were going to make long term commitments to the gas sector.  He did
   not differentiate between off-take commitments, or equity commitments.
   I also know that CNOOC has an investment team sitting in Brisbane, headed
   by a GM.  This is interesting, as they have not made any equity
   investments, which suggests they may be intending or hoping to do so.
    That would be an additional stake over the ones announced so far.
   There is a potential Chinese gas deal that has been in negotiation for
   sixteen months.  I don't know if this involves CNOOC or not, so it could
   be yet another deal, as i don't believe it is the bid for Bow.
   The gas sector is fairly tightly held in Australia.  I don't know what
   minor explorers are left, but they are probably in NSW, rather than
   Queensland.  Queensland has already seen a fair bit of consolidation over
   the last six or seven years.
   Of course any bid will have to go through the FIRB.  There is also a lot
   of community concern in the farming sector about impacts on the aquifers,
   which concern is well based.  That may also be a factor in any FIRB
   approval.

         Should we care about this?  What are the Chinese up to lately in Oz?

         -------- Original Message --------

         Subject: CHINA/AUSTRALIA/ENERGY/GV - Shell, PetroChina's Arrow       
                  Energy Offers $540 Million to Acquire Bow Energy            
            Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 09:38:05 -0500                             
            From: Michael Sher <michael.sher@stratfor.com>                    
              To: The OS List <os@stratfor.com>, Jennifer Richmond            
                  <richmond@stratfor.com>                                     

         Shell, PetroChina's Arrow Energy Offers $540 Million to Acquire Bow
         Energy
         Aug 22, 2011 2:09 AM CT
         http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/bow-energy-receives-proposal-from-arrow-energy-at-a-1-48-share.html

         Arrow plans a fourth LNG venture on Queensland's Curtis Island,
         following approvals for more than $50 billion in rival developments
         led by BG Group Plc, Santos Ltd. and ConocoPhillips to meet rising
         demand in Asia. Photographer: Eric Taylor/Bloomberg

         Arrow Energy Ltd., owned by Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) and
         PetroChina Co., offered about A$520 million ($540 million) for Bow
         Energy Ltd. (BOW), seeking more resources to underpin a proposed
         liquefied natural gas project in Australia.

         Arrow, a coal-seam gas explorer and producer in Queensland state,
         offered A$1.48 a share in cash, Brisbane-based Bow said today in a
         statement. That's 67 percent more than Bow's price of 88.5 cents in
         Sydney trading on Aug. 19. The shares surged 60 percent today to
         A$1.415 at the 4:10 p.m. close.

         The bid \"does significantly undervalue the stock compared with where
         we think it should be,\" said Andrew Williams, a Melbourne-based oil
         and gas analyst at RBC Capital Markets, who has a price target of
         A$1.75 on Bow's shares. \"It still leaves scope for upside and more
         play to come.\"

         Arrow plans a fourth LNG venture on Queensland's Curtis Island,
         following approvals for more than $50 billion in rival developments
         led by BG Group Plc (BG/), Santos Ltd. (STO) and ConocoPhillips
         (COP) to meet rising demand in Asia. Bow has been the subject of
         takeover speculation since Santos, Australia's third-largest oil and
         gas producer, agreed last month to pay about A$730 million to buy
         the shares in Eastern Star Gas Ltd. (ESG) it didn't already own.

         Bow has been in talks to supply gas to the companies developing the
         LNG projects in Queensland as it targets a more than fivefold gain
         in reserves by next year, Chief Executive Officer John De Stefani
         said in an Aug. 3 interview. Bow increased its proven and probable
         reserves to 238 petajoules last month and aims to reach 1,250
         petajoules in 2012, enough gas to support an LNG plant producing 1
         million metric tons of the fuel annually over 20 years, De Stefani
         said.
         `LNG Opportunity'

         The offer values Bow at about 6 Australian cents a gigajoule of gas
         reserves that may be recoverable, 33 percent less than the price
         Santos agreed to pay for Eastern Star and the amount Shell and
         PetroChina paid last year for Arrow, John Young, a Melbourne-based
         analyst at Wilson HTM Investment Group, estimated today. Those deals
         valued the targets at 9 cents a gigajoule, he said.

         \"Bow is still working to demonstrate conversion to 2P reserves,\"
         from proven, probable and possible reserves, \"whereas Arrow and
         Eastern Star were probably more advanced,\" Young said, adding he
         thinks a rival bid is unlikely.

         Dart Energy Ltd. (DTE), a Sydney-listed company developing coal bed
         methane resources in countries including Australia, rose 6.7 percent
         to 56 cents in Sydney, the most in four months. Exoma Energy Ltd.
         (EXE), a natural gas explorer in Queensland, climbed 21 percent to
         14.5 cents in Sydney, the most since July 1.

         A transaction with Bow would help Arrow increase the size of its
         first two LNG processing units, Chief Executive Officer Andrew
         Faulkner said today in a statement. Arrow initially plans to produce
         4 million tons of LNG a year from each of the first two units, the
         company said this month.
         `Complementary' Businesses

         Shell is \"quite happy\" to wait to develop the Arrow LNG project as
         costs to develop ventures rise, Peter Voser, chief executive officer
         of The Hague-based company, told analysts in July. Arrow expects a
         final investment decision to proceed with its development in late
         2013, Faulkner said in June.

         \"Shell's public statements indicate that they didn't mind being
         last, and they were willing to wait,\" RBC's Williams said. \"Now it
         looks as though they may want to accelerate it. It's a clear signal
         there is an LNG opportunity out there.\"

         Bow recommends that shareholders take no action at this stage, the
         company said in the statement.

         \"It makes sense for both companies to explore business opportunities
         given the proximity of both companies' coal-seam gas assets and the
         complementary nature of our businesses,\" Arrow's Faulkner said.
         \"Arrow has the technical capability, capital resources and
         guaranteed market that may assist Bow Energy realize the potential
         of its assets.\"

         Conoco and Sydney-based partner Origin Energy Ltd. (ORG) last month
         approved the first phase of a $20 billion project in Queensland.
         Santos said in January its venture would cost $16 billion, while BG
         in October said it would invest $15 billion.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4105
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-08-24 04:11:24",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2654712_-alpha-utf-8-q-insight_-_cn65_re-3a_china-australia-energy.html","clint.richards@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2687619,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2687619_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2695750,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
 CODE
","   It might sound strange, but some of the most radical deep ecology people
   actually believe that there are too many people on the earth and that
   radical steps must be taken to reduce the population and save the earth.
    This strain of deep ecology is a clear reflection of the way the movement
   was heavily influenced by people like Martin Heidegger who were also
   committed to Nazism. Yes, Nazis were radical environmentalists.....
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:08:31 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Jesus I spent a couple of hours researching these guys - weird is an
   understatement. Apparently they met yesterday a couple of blocks away from
   my house to consolidate their leadership, go through basic indoctrination
   and plan more events. As far as I can tell, the Austin chapter is not
   nearly as radical as the central Lierre Keith DGR whose website is a
   treasure trove of incitment to passive resistance, blowing up energy
   infra, basic counter intel and legal guidance.

   Their ideology seems to be a mix of hardcore environmentalism, anarchism,
   radical feminism and the general notion that we need to go back living
   sustainably like the american indians by blowing up every pipeline and
   cell tower on the planet. Unlike the central DGR, Austin DGR doesn't seem
   to have defined targets and goals (their meeting yesterday was a
   brainstorming session on what radical environmentalism means in Austin).

   just a few nice quotes from their central website:

   The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power
   with as much personal integrity as possible; it is to dismantle those
   systems.

   What would we do if Nazis had invaded, and they were vacuuming the oceans,
   scalping native forests, damming every river, changing the climate, and
   putting carcinogens into every mother's breast milk, and into the flesh of
   your children, your lover, your mother, into your own flesh? How much
   worse would the damage have to get? Would you resist? If there existed a
   resistance movement, would you join it?

   On 11/16/11 7:42 PM, Victoria Allen wrote:

     WHOA.
     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
     Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:38:01 -0600
     To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
     ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
     Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
     CODE
     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-17 14:01:00",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2695750_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2741245,"Re: [alpha] State/DSS on recent UK Birmingham round up
","   US leaks

   Leaks compromised UK prosecutions about a year ago.

   We caught the Brits kiling IRA in the past and they lied to us.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Chris Farnham <chris.farnham@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:16:21 -0500 (CDT)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] State/DSS on recent UK Birmingham round up
   What changed between the Brits and the US?

   Wikileaks fallout?

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: burton@stratfor.com
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, 21 September, 2011 9:20:46 AM
   Subject: [alpha] State/DSS on recent UK Birmingham round up

   Was the recent UK plot serious?
   --------------------------

   Brits no longer trust the US to share outright.  

   Looks so on the surface
   but to early on to do more than speculate.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

   --

   Chris Farnham
   Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR
   Australia Mobile: 0423372241
   Email: chris.farnham@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-21 02:27:28",1,"2012-02-29 03:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2741245_re-alpha-state-dss-on-recent-uk-birmingham-round-up-.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2794652,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2794652_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2799900,"Geronimo source payment
","Hello Fred,=20

Can you send us an \"approved\" email for the source that Marko left with you=
. Geronimo, $1200 monthly payment.=20

Since this is a recurring payment, you can also send us something like \"I a=
pprove this expense for the remainder of the term, or until I say otherwise=
.=20

Thanks,=20

Fernando Jaimes=20
Staff Accountant=20
STRATFOR=20
221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
T: 512-279-9469 =A6 F: 512-744-4105
www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-12-06 21:28:10",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2799900_geronimo-source-payment-.html","fernando.jaimes@stratfor.com","","ar@stratfor.com,fred.burton@core.stratfor.com",""
2800258,"Org Chart 2011
","12","2011-12-12 17:51:02",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2800258_org-chart-2011-.html","","","isaiah.massey@stratfor.com","attach/135/135464_Employee Org Chart as of CYE.xlsx"
2800966,"Jen Richmond's Source
","14","2011-12-14 22:39:49",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2800966_jen-richmond-s-source-.html","fernando.jaimes@stratfor.com","","mfriedman@stratfor.com,ar@stratfor.com","attach/122/122530_Bill or Credit - STRATFOR - QuickBooks Online Plus.pdf"
2803290,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
	CODE
","   Agree
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:59:46 -0600 (CST)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>; Korena Zucha<zucha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   I'll bet cash they are connected to the Austin guys busted for the DNC
   plot plus some of the Austin Earth First jabronis. 
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:51:44 -0600
   To: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>, Alpha List
   <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Have we seen Deep Green Resistance carry-out acts of violence in the
   past? 

   On 11/16/2011 6:38 PM, Korena Zucha wrote:

     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.
","2011-11-18 21:17:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2803290_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2831900,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2831900_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2851550,"Wires for Approval Template
","16","2011-12-06 23:38:04",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2851550_wires-for-approval-template-.html","","","ar@stratfor.com","attach/136/136715_Wires to Contractors for Approval Contractor payments.pdf"
2881990,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
","   this dude really gives the impression that Moscow calls the shots in Kiev

   so basically, Med gets pissed b/c Timo is blowing Putin and not him, so he
   whines to Putin and says drop the B and get behind Yanu like me. Putin
   says fine, Yanu gets excited and oversteps his boundaries, and now Putin
   is like fix this shit Med and Med is like okay, but we dont know what Med
   is actually gonna do to slap Yanu around

   so what's the couterargument to this? Does Russia really have this much
   influence over the situation?  this is something we need to address in
   ukraine reassessment

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111

   CODE: UA111
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   HANDLER: Lauren

    

   Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
   But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
   this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
   begin with.

    

   You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
   power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
   Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
   solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
   Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
   easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
   her in trouble and arrested.

    

   But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
   respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
   made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
   deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
   Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
   the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
   military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
   it had been pushing for.

    

   So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
   the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
   to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
   demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.

    

   Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
   to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
   against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
   will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-14 20:55:23",1,"2012-02-28 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2881990_re-alpha-insight-ukraine-moscow-kiev-spat-ua111-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2887615,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2887615_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2887843,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2887843_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2897611,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
","   this dude really gives the impression that Moscow calls the shots in Kiev

   so basically, Med gets pissed b/c Timo is blowing Putin and not him, so he
   whines to Putin and says drop the B and get behind Yanu like me. Putin
   says fine, Yanu gets excited and oversteps his boundaries, and now Putin
   is like fix this shit Med and Med is like okay, but we dont know what Med
   is actually gonna do to slap Yanu around

   so what's the couterargument to this? Does Russia really have this much
   influence over the situation?  this is something we need to address in
   ukraine reassessment

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111

   CODE: UA111
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   HANDLER: Lauren

    

   Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
   But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
   this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
   begin with.

    

   You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
   power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
   Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
   solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
   Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
   easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
   her in trouble and arrested.

    

   But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
   respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
   made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
   deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
   Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
   the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
   military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
   it had been pushing for.

    

   So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
   the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
   to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
   demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.

    

   Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
   to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
   against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
   will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-14 20:55:23",1,"2012-02-28 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2897611_re-alpha-insight-ukraine-moscow-kiev-spat-ua111-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2915509,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
	CODE
","   Agree
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:59:46 -0600 (CST)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>; Korena Zucha<zucha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   I'll bet cash they are connected to the Austin guys busted for the DNC
   plot plus some of the Austin Earth First jabronis. 
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:51:44 -0600
   To: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>, Alpha List
   <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Have we seen Deep Green Resistance carry-out acts of violence in the
   past? 

   On 11/16/2011 6:38 PM, Korena Zucha wrote:

     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.
","2011-11-18 21:17:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2915509_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2917676,"Follow-up
","","2011-08-30 16:12:44",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2917676_follow-up-.html","dedwards@heidrick.com","","shea.morenz@stratfor.com,psmith@heidrick.com,rtiminsky@heidrick.com","attach/137/137777_JS - Stratcap CIO.doc
attach/137/137778_CL - Stratfor CIO.doc"
2917714,"FW: Stratfor - Execution versions of documents
","","2011-08-02 21:05:30",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2917714_fw-stratfor-execution-versions-of-documents-.html","BHerzog@willkie.com","","kuykendall@stratfor.com,sf@feldhauslaw.com,shea.morenz@stratfor.com,MSilver@willkie.com","attach/121/121440_1 Amendment to Contribution and Subscription Agreement.pdf
attach/121/121441_8 Stratfor_ Re.pdf
attach/121/121442_20 Morenz - Stratfor - Services Agreement.pdf
attach/121/121444_9 Stratfor_ Re.pdf
attach/121/121446_15 16 Morenz - Stratfor - Incentive Unit Agreement.pdf
attach/121/121447_14 Morenz - Stratfor - Stratfor Enterprises LLC Agreement.pdf
attach/121/121448_11 Stratfor_ R.pdf
attach/121/121449_10 Stratfor_ R.pdf
attach/121/121450_2 General Conveyance Assignment Contribution and Assumption Agreement.pdf
attach/121/121452_7 Stratfor_ Re.pdf
attach/137/137783_30 31 Resolutions of SM Stratfor Partners, LLC.pdf
attach/137/137784_19 Stratcap Management Company Agreement.pdf"
2920964,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
 CODE
","   It might sound strange, but some of the most radical deep ecology people
   actually believe that there are too many people on the earth and that
   radical steps must be taken to reduce the population and save the earth.
    This strain of deep ecology is a clear reflection of the way the movement
   was heavily influenced by people like Martin Heidegger who were also
   committed to Nazism. Yes, Nazis were radical environmentalists.....
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:08:31 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Jesus I spent a couple of hours researching these guys - weird is an
   understatement. Apparently they met yesterday a couple of blocks away from
   my house to consolidate their leadership, go through basic indoctrination
   and plan more events. As far as I can tell, the Austin chapter is not
   nearly as radical as the central Lierre Keith DGR whose website is a
   treasure trove of incitment to passive resistance, blowing up energy
   infra, basic counter intel and legal guidance.

   Their ideology seems to be a mix of hardcore environmentalism, anarchism,
   radical feminism and the general notion that we need to go back living
   sustainably like the american indians by blowing up every pipeline and
   cell tower on the planet. Unlike the central DGR, Austin DGR doesn't seem
   to have defined targets and goals (their meeting yesterday was a
   brainstorming session on what radical environmentalism means in Austin).

   just a few nice quotes from their central website:

   The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power
   with as much personal integrity as possible; it is to dismantle those
   systems.

   What would we do if Nazis had invaded, and they were vacuuming the oceans,
   scalping native forests, damming every river, changing the climate, and
   putting carcinogens into every mother's breast milk, and into the flesh of
   your children, your lover, your mother, into your own flesh? How much
   worse would the damage have to get? Would you resist? If there existed a
   resistance movement, would you join it?

   On 11/16/11 7:42 PM, Victoria Allen wrote:

     WHOA.
     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
     Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:38:01 -0600
     To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
     ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
     Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
     CODE
     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-17 14:01:00",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2920964_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2922144,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2922144_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2926405,"FW: Stratcap International Organizational Chart (SA Ventures) -
 Attorney/Client Privileged Communication
","43","2011-12-05 23:37:05",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2926405_fw-stratcap-international-organizational-chart-sa-ventures.html","bknippa@jw.com","","shea.morenz@stratfor.com,hope.massey@stratfor.com,stammwc@gmail.com,jstephenson@jw.com,cmcdowell@jw.com","attach/137/137921_rmlist.doc
attach/137/137922_SovereignCyprusNames.doc
attach/137/137923_Stratcap Inter.VSD
attach/137/137924_image001.gif
attach/137/137925_Sovereign due diligence requirements 2.doc
attach/137/137926_.pdf
attach/137/137927_.doc
attach/137/137928_Application Trust Cyprus.doc"
2928884,"<no subject>
","","2011-12-10 21:11:46",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2928884_-no-subject-.html","shea.morenz@stratfor.com","","shea.morenz@stratfor.com","attach/138/138161_STRATCAP COMP.xlsx"
2942294,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
	CODE
","   Agree
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:59:46 -0600 (CST)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>; Korena Zucha<zucha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   I'll bet cash they are connected to the Austin guys busted for the DNC
   plot plus some of the Austin Earth First jabronis. 
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:51:44 -0600
   To: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>, Alpha List
   <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Have we seen Deep Green Resistance carry-out acts of violence in the
   past? 

   On 11/16/2011 6:38 PM, Korena Zucha wrote:

     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.
","2011-11-18 21:17:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2942294_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
2972881,"Fwd: FLASH/PLEASE INVOICE-Hunt Oil Contract Renewal
","   And one to grow on!

   Sent from my iPad
   Begin forwarded message:

     From: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
     To: Kuykendall Don <kuykendall@stratfor.com>, Darryl O'Connor
     <darryl.oconnor@stratfor.com>, Rob Bassetti <rob.bassetti@stratfor.com>,
     'Fernando Jaimes' <fernando.jaimes@stratfor.com>, 'Holly Sparkman'
     <holly.sparkman@stratfor.com>
     Subject: FLASH/PLEASE INVOICE-Hunt Oil Contract Renewal

     <!--
     /* Font Definitions */
     @font-face
        {font-family:Calibri;
        panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
     @font-face
        {font-family:Tahoma;
        panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
     @font-face
        {font-family:Verdana;
        panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
     @font-face
        {font-family:Webdings;
        panose-1:5 3 1 2 1 5 9 6 7 3;}
     @font-face
        {font-family:\"Book Antiqua\";
        panose-1:2 4 6 2 5 3 5 3 3 4;}
     /* Style Definitions */
     p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:11.0pt;
        font-family:\"Calibri\",\"sans-serif\";}
     a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}
     a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:purple;
        text-decoration:underline;}
     span.EmailStyle17
        {mso-style-type:personal-compose;
        font-family:\"Calibri\",\"sans-serif\";
        color:windowtext;}
     .MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;
        font-family:\"Calibri\",\"sans-serif\";}
     @page WordSection1
        {size:8.5in 11.0in;
        margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
     div.WordSection1
        {page:WordSection1;}
     -->
        Client: Hunt Oil
              Project: Renewal of Strategic Monitoring services for Iraq,
              Mexico, Peru and Yemen.
              Note that their current contract does not expire until Sept.
              15, however they wish to receive the invoice and process the
              payment now.
              Services Time frame: Sept. 16, 2011-Sept. 15, 2012
              Payment Terms: They are going with Option 2 (up front
              payment). \"STRATFOR will invoice CLIENT for the entire sum
              (less a 5 percent discount or $42,393.75) upon execution of
              the Agreement. Invoice is due upon receipt.\"
     <!--
     /* Font Definitions */
     @font-face
        {font-family:\"Cambria Math\";
        panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
        mso-font-charset:0;
        mso-generic-font-family:auto;
        mso-font-pitch:variable;
        mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
     @font-face
        {font-family:Calibri;
        panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
        mso-font-charset:0;
        mso-generic-font-family:auto;
        mso-font-pitch:variable;
        mso-font-signature:-520092929 1073786111 9 0 415 0;}
     /* Style Definitions */
     p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {mso-style-unhide:no;
        mso-style-qformat:yes;
        mso-style-parent:\"\";
        margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:\"Times New Roman\";
        mso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";
        mso-bidi-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}
     .MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;
        mso-default-props:yes;
        font-family:Cambria;
        mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
        mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
        mso-fareast-font-family:\"&#65325;&#65331; &#26126;&#26397;\";
        mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
        mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
        mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
        mso-bidi-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";
        mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
     @page WordSection1
        {size:8.5in 11.0in;
        margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
        mso-header-margin:.5in;
        mso-footer-margin:.5in;
        mso-paper-source:0;}
     div.WordSection1
        {page:WordSection1;}
     -->
        FEES
                Details
                Pricing
                Option
                        1A*Intelligence Monitoring and Monthly Forecasts
                (quarterly
                        payments)
                $44,625.00
                        (or four payments of $11,156.25)
                Option
                          2A*Intelligence Monitoring and Monthly Forecasts
                (up-front
                          payment)
                $44,625.00
                          (less a 5 percent discount or $42,393.75)
              Billing contact:
            Debby
                Efurd
                Business Security Analyst - Global Security
                Hunt Consolidated Inc. | 1900 North Akard Street | Dallas,
                TX 75201-2300
                T: 214.978.8602 | F: 214.855.6779 | E: defurd@huntoil.com
                Please let me know if you have any questions.
                Korena

     <20110728145032.pdf>
","2011-07-29 00:21:45",1,"2012-03-01 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2972881_fwd-flash-please-invoice-hunt-oil-contract-renewal-.html","kuykendall@stratfor.com","","sf@feldhauslaw.com,shea.morenz@stratfor.com",""
2975424,"RE: Stratfor/Stratcap Structure Matters
","That is very clear, thank you!

--
Shea Morenz
Managing Partner
STRATFOR
221 W. 6th Street
Suite 400
Austin, Texas 78701

O: 512-583-7721 ¦ M: 713.410.9719 ¦ F: 512.744.4105

 www.STRATFOR.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Feldhaus, Stephen [mailto:sf@feldhauslaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 10:58 AM
To: Knippa, Brad; Shea B. Morenz
Cc: Mr. Don R. Kuykendall; Craig Stamm; McDowell, Cale; Mr. George
Friedman
Subject: RE: Stratfor/Stratcap Structure Matters

Shea,

Brad and Cale and I had a very thorough and good discussion about all of
the outstanding issues.  There is no suggestion on anyone's part that the
August 1 transaction was not properly documented, or that it was not
properly approved by the shareholders of Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

Shareholders of Strategic Forecasting, Inc., holding more than 80% of the
voting shares of Strategic Forecasting, Inc., approved ALL of the
transactions that occurred effective April 25 and August 1.  That approval
included the formation of Stratcap Management Company, LLC, the
shareholding therein by Stratfor Holdings, LLC, and by Stratfor
Enterprises, LLC, as well as the Services Agreement being entered into by
Stratfor Enterprises, LLC, and Stratcap Management Company, LLC.
Furthermore, each of the signatories of the shareholders consent of
Strategic Forecsting, Inc., had the final documents in hand for every
transaction, including the specific ones referenced above, when they
signed the shareholder consent.

I am reciting the foregoing to make it clear that the purpose of our
exercise is not to correct an error that occurred at the time of the
original closing, which I take it from your comments and email yesterday
seems to be the impression that you had.

Having said the foregoing, I and we are delighted to work with Brad and
Cale to provide as broad a shareholder approval as you may want for any
aspect of our relationship, including to obtain the approval of most of
the rest of the shareholders of strategic Forecasting, Inc. to the
original transaction.

Brad, Cale, and I are in agreement that the Consolidated relationship
should be blessed by as many of the shareholders of Strategic Forecasting,
Inc., as possible, to document their approval of that transactions, to
document the intention that Strategic Forecasting, Inc., and Stratfor
Enterprises, LLC, will respectively participate in these types of
transactions in the future with an equity participation no less than their
participation in Stratcap, and to obtain shareholder approval for George
and Don's participation in Consolidated.

Don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

Steve

CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE
In accordance with Treasury Regulations, please note that any tax advice
given herein (and in any attachments) is not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any transaction or matter addressed herein.


This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information
belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action regarding
the contents of this e-mailed information is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by
return e-mail, then delete the original message.

-----Original Message-----
From: Feldhaus, Stephen
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 9:22 AM
To: 'Knippa, Brad'; Shea B. Morenz
Cc: Mr. Don R. Kuykendall; Craig Stamm; McDowell, Cale; Mr. George
Friedman
Subject: RE: Stratfor/Stratcap Structure Matters

Perfect.


CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE
In accordance with Treasury Regulations, please note that any tax advice
given herein (and in any attachments) is not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any transaction or matter addressed herein.


This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information
belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action regarding
the contents of this e-mailed information is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by
return e-mail, then delete the original message.

-----Original Message-----
From: Knippa, Brad [mailto:bknippa@jw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 9:17 AM
To: Feldhaus, Stephen; Shea B. Morenz
Cc: Mr. Don R. Kuykendall; Craig Stamm; McDowell, Cale; Mr. George
Friedman
Subject: RE: Stratfor/Stratcap Structure Matters

I'd be pleased to visit.  I'm stepping into a meeting but will try to
reach you on your cell at 9:30.  Thanks.

Bradley S. Knippa, JD, CPA
Jackson Walker L.L.P.
100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100
Austin, Texas 78701
Direct: (512) 236-2284
Mobile: (512) 431-8336
Facsimile: (512) 391-2126
E-mail: bknippa@jw.com
Web: www.jw.com

This message and any attachments contain privileged and confidential
attorney client information and/or attorney work product exclusively for
intended recipients. Please do not forward or distribute to anyone else.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please call (512) 236-2284 to
report the error then delete this message from your system.  The
statements contained herein are not intended to and do not constitute an
opinion as to any tax or other matter. They are not intended or written to
be used, and may not be relied upon, by you or any other person for the
purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under any Federal tax
law or otherwise.


-----Original Message-----
From: Feldhaus, Stephen [mailto:sf@feldhauslaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 8:01 AM
To: Shea B. Morenz; Feldhaus, Stephen
Cc: Knippa, Brad; Mr. Don R. Kuykendall; Craig Stamm; McDowell, Cale; Mr.
George Friedman
Subject: Re: Stratfor/Stratcap Structure Matters

Brad,

Let's chat this morning to see what's behind Shea's impression that there
is something wrong with the Stockholders Consent I sent around last
evening. My cell is 202-531-2211.

Best,

Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Shea Morenz <shea.morenz@stratfor.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:47:45
To: Feldhaus, Stephen<sf@feldhauslaw.com>
Cc: Knippa, Brad<bknippa@jw.com>; Don Kuykendall<kuykendall@stratfor.com>;
Craig Stamm<stammwc@gmail.com>; McDowell, Cale<cmcdowell@jw.com>; George
Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>
Subject: Re: Stratfor/Stratcap Structure Matters

Simply trying to get all on the same page... Glad we are on this point as
I was not under that impression. Anything misinterpreted in the other
points?
Thx

--
Shea Morenz
STRATFOR
Managing Partner
office: 512.583.7721
Cell: 713.410.9719
shea.morenz@stratfor.com

(Sent from my iPhone)

On Dec 12, 2011, at 11:33 PM, \"Feldhaus, Stephen\" <sf@feldhauslaw.com>
wrote:

> Shea,
>
> It is late but I notice a sense of urgency and perhaps even more in your
highlighted section and the comment following below.
>
> Please note that your attorney, Bruce Herzog, approved the Strategic
Forecasting, Inc. shareholder consent that was executed as part of the
closing.  Please also note that this consent, which is attached, is, as I
told you today, a very broad consent, and is more than adequate to
constitute the consent of the signing shareholders of Strategic
Forecasting, Inc, for the Stratcap investment and Services Agreement.  I
am glad to provide a broader consent as you indicate you wish, and to
provide copies of all the documents to the other shareholders as you
indicate you wish, and to attempt to obtain the approval of as many of the
other shareholders as we can, but your implication that you are surprised
at what happened is equally surprising to me, since Bruce was fully aware
of everything that we did, and was fine with it and with the language of
the attached consent (which he specifically approved) at the time of our
August 1 closing.
>
> I am hopeful that there has been a miscommunication somewhere along the
line on your side, because the implication of your email that Stratfor has
done something improper that could imperil your ability to recruit
candidates is alarming and I truly do not believe is correct in any
respect.
>
> Again, I do hope that a miscommunication has occurred.  I felt that Brad
and I understood what each was saying.  I do not concur with the
implication of your email that Stratfor has done anything improper, and I
do know that Bruce certainly did not believe that we did anything
improper, because he approved the language of the consent.
>
> My plane leaves at 11:30 in the morning.  I am available before then or
after my arrival at 3:30 your time to discuss any of this as fully and
completely as you or Brad would like.  I am also more than willing to take
any action that you or Brad feel is needed to provide Stratcap with the
best offering memorandum possible.  But I do not accept that Stratfor has
failed to do something properly that imperils the Stratcap venture in any
way.
>
> Best,
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE
> In accordance with Treasury Regulations, please note that any tax advice
given herein (and in any attachments) is not intended or written to be
used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information
belonging to the sender which is legally privileged. The information is
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you
are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action regarding
the contents of this e-mailed information is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by
return e-mail, then delete the original message.
>
> From: Shea Morenz [mailto:shea.morenz@stratfor.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 10:06 PM
> To: Knippa, Brad; Don Kuykendall
> Cc: Feldhaus, Stephen; 'Craig Stamm'; McDowell, Cale; George Friedman
> Subject: Re: Stratfor/Stratcap Structure Matters
>
> Steve, pls confirm / correct the key follow-up points from today as I
certain I have missed something:
>
> 1. Squeeze-out merger/Subchapter S election of Strategic Forecasting,
> Inc. (\"Stratfor Inc.\") -we will exchange the preferred Inc shares for
> a note, which requires the approval of Don and Steve alone -we will
> get all 65 shareholders to approve the transaction
>
> 2. Stratfor Enterprises, LLC (\"Enterprises\") transaction -we will
> ensure that all non-consenting shareholders get adequate disclosure of
> the transactions under DGCL § 228(e)
>
> 3. Stratcap Management, LLC (\"Stratcap\") / Stratcap International
> Consolidated Inc. (\"Stratcap Consolidated\")
>
> \"Second, the scope of the consent granted by the shareholders of
Stratfor Inc. appears to have been limited to SM/Stratfor's investment in
Stratfor, the formation of Enterprises, and the contribution to
Enterprises of the assets of Stratfor Inc., and did not include the
formation of Stratcap, the grant of interests in Stratcap to each of Shea
and George, or the terms of the Services Agreement between Enterprises and
Stratcap (collectively, the \"Stratcap Matters\").  Given the dynamics here,
Steve, Cale and I all agreed that the proper course of action is to seek
the approval of the shareholders of Stratfor Inc. to those transactions,
as well as the formation of Stratcap International Consolidated Inc.
(\"Stratcap Consolidated\") and the participation of George, Don and Shea in
that entity.\"
>
> I can't believe that STRATCAP has never even been granted consent from
the majority of the shareholders? Steve, you suggested otherwise today,
which is correct? Obviously, I am very concerned about recruiting
candidates to move to Austin, who will review all documents, without
shareholder approval of this transaction. This cannot slow our progress!
>
> Thus, we are planning to simultaneously execute all these items
immediately alongside of the S-Corp transaction, which means that we are
including all 65 shareholders in each case so we can properly approve the
ENTERPRISES and STRATCAP transactions executed in August in order to
finalize all related issues by January 31.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Shea Morenz
> Managing Partner
> STRATFOR
> 221 West 6th Street
> Suite 400
> Austin, Texas 78701
>
> shea.morenz@stratfor.com
> Phone: 512.583.7721
> Cell: 713.410.9719
>
> From: Brad Knippa <bknippa@jw.com<mailto:bknippa@jw.com>>
> Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2011 08:33:36 -0600
> To: Brad Knippa <bknippa@jw.com<mailto:bknippa@jw.com>>, Shea Morenz
> <shea.morenz@stratfor.com<mailto:shea.morenz@stratfor.com>>, Don
> Kuykendall <kuykendall@stratfor.com<mailto:kuykendall@stratfor.com>>
> Cc: Stephen Feldhaus <sf@feldhauslaw.com<mailto:sf@feldhauslaw.com>>,
> 'Craig Stamm' <stammwc@gmail.com<mailto:stammwc@gmail.com>>,
> \"McDowell, Cale\" <cmcdowell@jw.com<mailto:cmcdowell@jw.com>>
> Subject: RE: Stratfor/Stratcap Structure Matters
>
> To clarify, the last sentence should state \"Our presumption . . .\"
> Pardon my suspect proof-reading.  BK
>
> _____________________________________________
> From:    Knippa, Brad
> Sent:   Saturday, December 10, 2011 8:28 AM
> To:     Shea Morenz; 'Don Kuykendall'
> Cc:     Stephen Feldhaus; 'Craig Stamm'; McDowell, Cale
> Subject:        Stratfor/Stratcap Structure Matters
>
> Shea and Don,
>
> As we discussed on Thursday, Cale and I had a good, constructive
conversation with Steve Feldhaus regarding some of the fiduciary issues
that we are analyzing in connection with the formation of Stratcap
International Consolidated, LLC (\"Stratcap Consolidated\").
>
> In brief summary, its our understanding that we have arrived on the
following conclusions/recommendations:
>
> A.  Upon the completion of the notice and consent process relating to
the squeeze-out merger/Subchapter S election of Strategic Forecasting,
Inc. (\"Stratfor Inc.\"), the remaining shareholders of Stratfor Inc. should
be provided an update regarding the progress by Stratcap Management, LLC
(\"Stratcap\") regarding fund and investment matters, and concurrently be
provided a comprehensive disclosure document which informs them the terms
upon which Stratcap was formed, will be owned, and will operate before
finalizing the ownership of Stratcap Consolidated.
>
> B.  In the meantime, we can proceed with the formation of the new
Cypriot entity, the execution of the note evidencing Stratcap's obligation
to repay amounts loaned by Shea's entity SM/Stratfor Partners, LLC
(\"SM/Stratfor\"), and the engagement of Sipho, but all under a slightly
revised interim structure (explained below).
>
> C.  We need to confirm that the capitalization of each of Stratcap and
Stratfor Inc. reflects the agreement of the parties, in light of certain
conflicting information we noted in the organizational chart and
underlying documentation JW was provided.
>
> The following discussion expands on the points above:
>
> 1. Prior Shareholder Approvals
>
> From our conversation with Steve and review of documents, it appears
that a majority of the shareholders of Stratfor Inc. received copies of
the Contribution & Subscription Agreement (as amended) and the company
agreement of Stratfor Enterprises, LLC (\"Enterprises\")in connection with
the action by written consent to approve the recent restructuring
transaction.  Assuming that these matters were approved in accordance with
the governing documents of Stratfor Inc. (which we have not yet reviewed),
the restructuring transaction was properly effected and the consenting
shareholders have received proper disclosure of, and have approved,
SM/Stratfor's investment in Stratfor, the formation of Enterprises, and
the contribution to Enterprises of the assets of Stratfor Inc.
>
> This leaves open two items for consideration:
>
> First, the above-referenced consent was not unanimous, which means that
there is a small group of non-consenting shareholders who would not be
estopped from complaining about the reorganization of Stratfor and the
terms of SM/Stratfor's investment. We should consider whether these
non-consenting shareholders received adequate disclosure of the
transactions under DGCL § 228(e).  These concerns are, however, somewhat
mitigated by the fact that the non-consenting shareholders' ownership
interests are small enough that any damages would be limited (and 16 of
them will \"go away\" when the total number of shareholders is reduced from
65 to 49 in the merger transaction).
>
> Second, the scope of the consent granted by the shareholders of Stratfor
Inc. appears to have been limited to SM/Stratfor's investment in Stratfor,
the formation of Enterprises, and the contribution to Enterprises of the
assets of Stratfor Inc., and did not include the formation of Stratcap,
the grant of interests in Stratcap to each of Shea and George, or the
terms of the Services Agreement between Enterprises and Stratcap
(collectively, the \"Stratcap Matters\").  Given the dynamics here, Steve,
Cale and I all agreed that the proper course of action is to seek the
approval of the shareholders of Stratfor Inc. to those transactions, as
well as the formation of Stratcap International Consolidated Inc.
(\"Stratcap Consolidated\") and the participation of George, Don and Shea in
that entity.
>
> 2. Stratcap Consolidated
>
> Given the lack of approval of the Stratcap Matters, we cannot (as we
previously hoped) rely on the percentage interests granted to each of
Enterprises and Stratfor Holdings, LLC (resulting in a combined 22.5%
beneficial interest to the shareholders of Stratfor Inc.) as a model by
which to eliminate any damages suffered by those shareholders in
connection with the Stratcap Matters.  In other words, because the
capitalization of Stratcap has not been ratified by the shareholders of
Stratfor Inc., modeling the capitalization of future entities after
Stratcap affords no protection against claims of self-dealing, breach of
fiduciary duty, etc.  Accordingly, we would be well advised to hold off on
finalizing the formation of Stratcap Consolidated until we are able to
confirm approval of the Stratcap Matters from the shareholders of Stratfor
Inc.
>
> 3. Timing & Interim Solution
>
> We understand that Stratfor Inc. is preparing to send materials to its
shareholders relating to a proposed squeeze-out merger and the election to
treat Stratfor Inc. as a Subchapter S corporation.  Once this has been
completed, Stratfor Inc. will be in a position to approach the remaining
shareholders to request that they approve the Stratcap Matters.  Steve
believes that we would be able to obtain close to 100% approval of the
Stratcap Matters, which would dramatically reduce the fiduciary duty risks
associated with the formation and operation of Stratcap and its related
entities.  These two consecutive approval processes may, however, take us
into January, which necessitates an interim solution.
>
> To that end, we propose to use Stratcap as a surrogate entity until we
are able to obtain shareholder approval of the formation of Stratcap
Consolidated (together with the other Stratcap Matters).  We should be
able to proceed with the formation of the Cypriot entity that was to be a
subsidiary of Stratcap Consolidated as a subsidiary of Stratcap instead.
Using Stratcap as a surrogate would also entail reworking the SM/Stratfor
promissory note to allow Shea's cash advances to go to Stratcap rather
than to Stratcap Consolidated. With regard to Sipho, his consulting
agreement could be set up to belong to the newly formed Cypriot entity
(which we will ultimately move under Stratcap Consolidated).
>
> Note that, though Sipho's consulting agreement provides for the
calculation of his \"performance bonus\" on the basis of 77.5% of
\"distributed cash\" (i.e., distributed cash after subtracting the 22.5%
beneficial interest of Stratfor Inc.), and, as noted above, this 22.5%
figure has been disendowed of its \"magic\" protective status, we see no
purely legal reason that the consulting agreement with Sipho (being an
arms-length transaction) cannot use this figure if it is acceptable to you
from a business perspective.  Of course, whatever terms you agree upon
with Sipho will benefit the owners of Stratcap, and (by extension)
Stratfor Inc., ratably, regardless of the percentage of distributed cash
you agree to make available to Sipho.  The proper percentage to use in
this context is a business question rather than a legal one.
>
> If these interim measures are acceptable, we should be able to move
forward with finalizing the Cypriot entity and the consulting agreement
with Sipho while working on the Stratfor Inc. shareholder approvals in
parallel.
>
> 4. Capitalization
>
> On a more perfunctory note, we need to confirm the capitalization of
Stratcap and Enterprises.  It appears that the percentages reflected on
the organizational chart that we received do exactly tie-out with the
percentages in the ownership documents we reviewed.  The difference are
not material, and they may simply result from the organizational chart's
of approximate percentages, but we want to be sure to nail-town the
precise calculations.
>
> See below for a summary of (i) the percentages reflected on the
organizational chart with respect to each entity, (ii) the number of units
assigned to each member in the respective company agreements, (iii) each
member's non-incentive ownership percentage, based on units held (per
company agreements), and (iv) each member's total ownership percentage
(incentive and non-incentive, assuming no forfeiture), based on units held
(per company agreements).
>
> Stratcap Management LLC
>
> (i)
> Org. Chart
>
> (ii)
> Company Agreement (Units)
>
> (iii)
> Co. Agmt. Percentage (w/o incentive units)
>
> (iv)
> Co. Agmt. Percentage (with incentive units)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Stratfor Holdings, LLC (Class A Units)
>
> 18%
>
> 180,000
>
> 20.00%
>
> 19.15%
>
> Stratfor Enterprises, LLC (Class A Units)
>
> 5%
>
> 45,000
>
> 5.00%
>
> 4.79%
>
> SM/Stratfor Partners, LLC (Class A Units)
>
> 72%
>
> 630,000
>
> 70.00%
>
> 67.02%
>
> SM/Stratfor Partners, LLC (Series 1 Incentive)
>
> --
>
> 20,000
>
> --
>
> 2.13%
>
> Shea Morenz (Series 2 Incentive)
>
> --
>
> 20,000
>
> --
>
> 2.13%
>
> George Freidman (Class A Units)
>
> 5%
>
> 45,000
>
> 5.00%
>
> 4.79%
>
> TOTAL:
>
> 100%
>
> 940,000
>
> 100.00%
>
> 100.00%
>
>
> Stratfor Enterprises, LLC
>
> Org. Chart
>
> Company Agreement (Units)
>
> Co. Agmt. Percentage (w/o incentive units)
>
> Co. Agmt. Percentage (with incentive units)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (Class A Units)
>
> 90%
>
> 180,000
>
> 90.00%
>
> 81.82%
>
> SM/Stratfor Partners, LLC (Class A Units)
>
> 10%
>
> 20,000
>
> 10.00%
>
> 9.09%
>
> Shea Morenz (Incentive Units)
>
> --
>
> 20,000
>
> --
>
> 9.09%
>
> TOTAL
>
> 100%
>
> 220,000
>
> 100.00%
>
> 100.00%
>
>
> Is are presumption that figures in column (ii) accurately reflect the
deal that was made with respect to Stratcap and Enterprises, and that the
organizational chart should be revised accordingly.  We'll go with this
assumption unless you inform us to the contrary.
>
> Steve, feel free to chime in with any additions and/or corrections.
>
> Thanks.
>
> BK
>
> Bradley S. Knippa, JD, CPA
> Jackson Walker L.L.P.
> 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1100
> Austin, Texas 78701
> Direct: (512) 236-2284
> Mobile: (512) 431-8336
> Facsimile: (512) 391-2126
> E-mail: bknippa@jw.com<mailto:bknippa@jw.com>
> Web: www.jw.com
>
> This message and any attachments contain privileged and confidential
attorney client information and/or attorney work product exclusively for
intended recipients. Please do not forward or distribute to anyone else.
If you have received this e-mail in error, please call (512) 236-2284 to
report the error then delete this message from your system.  The
statements contained herein are not intended to and do not constitute an
opinion as to any tax or other matter. They are not intended or written to
be used, and may not be relied upon, by you or any other person for the
purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under any Federal tax
law or otherwise.
>
>
> <27 stratfor - consent of the stockholders of strategic forecasting,
> inc..pdf>
","2011-12-13 18:08:42",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2975424_re-stratfor-stratcap-structure-matters-.html","","","gfriedman@stratfor.com,kuykendall@stratfor.com,sf@feldhauslaw.com,stammwc@gmail.com,bknippa@jw.com,cmcdowell@jw.com",""
2985610,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
	CODE
","   Agree
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:59:46 -0600 (CST)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>; Korena Zucha<zucha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   I'll bet cash they are connected to the Austin guys busted for the DNC
   plot plus some of the Austin Earth First jabronis. 
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:51:44 -0600
   To: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>, Alpha List
   <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Have we seen Deep Green Resistance carry-out acts of violence in the
   past? 

   On 11/16/2011 6:38 PM, Korena Zucha wrote:

     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.
","2011-11-18 21:17:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/2985610_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3016788,"International Deal Structure (Stratcap)
","120","2011-09-29 00:29:15",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3016788_international-deal-structure-stratcap-.html","bknippa@jw.com","","shea.morenz@stratfor.com,JHill@mpwcpa.com,jstephenson@jw.com,asolomon@jw.com,bjanes@jw.com","attach/36/36383_International Deal Structure - Stratcap.pdf"
3312547,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3312547_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3355023,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3355023_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3355217,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
 CODE
","   It might sound strange, but some of the most radical deep ecology people
   actually believe that there are too many people on the earth and that
   radical steps must be taken to reduce the population and save the earth.
    This strain of deep ecology is a clear reflection of the way the movement
   was heavily influenced by people like Martin Heidegger who were also
   committed to Nazism. Yes, Nazis were radical environmentalists.....
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:08:31 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Jesus I spent a couple of hours researching these guys - weird is an
   understatement. Apparently they met yesterday a couple of blocks away from
   my house to consolidate their leadership, go through basic indoctrination
   and plan more events. As far as I can tell, the Austin chapter is not
   nearly as radical as the central Lierre Keith DGR whose website is a
   treasure trove of incitment to passive resistance, blowing up energy
   infra, basic counter intel and legal guidance.

   Their ideology seems to be a mix of hardcore environmentalism, anarchism,
   radical feminism and the general notion that we need to go back living
   sustainably like the american indians by blowing up every pipeline and
   cell tower on the planet. Unlike the central DGR, Austin DGR doesn't seem
   to have defined targets and goals (their meeting yesterday was a
   brainstorming session on what radical environmentalism means in Austin).

   just a few nice quotes from their central website:

   The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power
   with as much personal integrity as possible; it is to dismantle those
   systems.

   What would we do if Nazis had invaded, and they were vacuuming the oceans,
   scalping native forests, damming every river, changing the climate, and
   putting carcinogens into every mother's breast milk, and into the flesh of
   your children, your lover, your mother, into your own flesh? How much
   worse would the damage have to get? Would you resist? If there existed a
   resistance movement, would you join it?

   On 11/16/11 7:42 PM, Victoria Allen wrote:

     WHOA.
     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
     Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:38:01 -0600
     To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
     ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
     Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
     CODE
     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-17 14:01:00",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3355217_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3373596,"Fwd: [alpha] INSIGHT - INDONESIA - Freeport - CN65
","   Response from source CN65:  disagree.  I don't know what the figures are
   for this mine, but if that is what they have forward sold, then it equates
   to only 12.5 days production.  This means they are unlikely be under much
   pressure.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Alfredo Viegas\" <alfredo.viegas@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Benjamin Preisler\" <ben.preisler@stratfor.com>
     Cc: \"Melissa Taylor\" <melissa.taylor@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 7:15:35 AM
     Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - INDONESIA - Freeport - CN65

     As of June reporting - Freeport had 55 million pounds of copper sold
     forward, most of which was due for delivery by end August.  Uncertain if
     they would roll these contracts, but maybe they did, but that is only
     about $200mn impact.   Meanwhile back in July the Indonesia workers went
     on strike for 8 days and this cost Freeport 35 million pounds of lost
     copper production and 60,000 oz of lost gold.   Hence, I think we can
     see that if this strike goes on for a long while it can quickly add up
     in terms of lost production

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Benjamin Preisler\" <ben.preisler@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 7:45:27 AM
     Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - INDONESIA - Freeport - CN65

     **I have another new Indo source I want to test out on this issue and I
     can also go back to this source.  What are some specifics we're looking
     at?  This source is sending in an interesting question, not really
     insight.  We need to see if we can find out more.

     SOURCE: CN65
     ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
     natural resources
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: Not really insight but direction
     DISTRO: Alpha + Invest
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

     Dear Jen,
     In case you haven't heard:

       Freeport Weighs Grasberg Strike Impact on Output, Shipments
       Sept. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. is
       assessing the
       impact on production and deliveries at its Grasberg copper and gold
       mine in
       Indonesia after the union said 70 percent of workers started a
       one-month strike
       last night. About 8,000 employees at Grasberg, excluding workers from
       contractors, joined the strike that started at midnight to demand wage
       increases,
       Juli Parorrongan, a labor union spokesman, said today. Freeport miners
       are also
       striking in Peru. We are disappointed that union workers decided to
       implement an
       illegal work stoppage, said Ramdani Sirait, a PT Freeport Indonesia
       spokesman,
       in a statement. The company has negotiated in a diligent good-faith
       manner with
       union representatives to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement.
       Grasberg has
       the worlds largest recoverable reserves of copper and the biggest
       single gold
       reserve, according to the Freeport website. Workers in Peru, Chile,
       Bolivia and
       Indonesia have gone on strike at copper, gold and zinc mines this
       year, seeking
       improved conditions and a bigger slice of record profits after metal
       prices more
       than doubled since the end of 2008. Copper for three-month delivery
       advanced as
       much as 1.1 percent to $8,727 a metric ton on the London Metal
       Exchange today and
       traded at $8,647.75 a ton. Strikes at Grasberg in Papua province 1,940
       miles
       (3,120 kilometers) east of Jakarta, and in Peru may widen a global
       shortage of
       copper estimated at 670,000 metric tons this year by Barclays Capital
       and boost
       prices of the metal.

     The issue on this is how much of Freeport's production is forward sold?
      If they have not forward sold much, then there is not a huge amount of
     pressure, since prices will rise, and so marginal profits will increase,
     marginally offsetting losses on fixed capital.  if they have forward
     sold their production, then there will be greater issues, and the
     company will be under more pressure, unless the contracts have a force
     majeure clause covering strikes.

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19
","1970-01-01 01:00:00",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3373596_fwd-alpha-insight-indonesia-freeport-cn65-.html","melissa.taylor@stratfor.com","","richmond@stratfor.com,korena.zucha@stratfor.com,kendra.vessels@stratfor.com,alfredo.viegas@stratfor.com",""
3392735,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
","   this dude really gives the impression that Moscow calls the shots in Kiev

   so basically, Med gets pissed b/c Timo is blowing Putin and not him, so he
   whines to Putin and says drop the B and get behind Yanu like me. Putin
   says fine, Yanu gets excited and oversteps his boundaries, and now Putin
   is like fix this shit Med and Med is like okay, but we dont know what Med
   is actually gonna do to slap Yanu around

   so what's the couterargument to this? Does Russia really have this much
   influence over the situation?  this is something we need to address in
   ukraine reassessment

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111

   CODE: UA111
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   HANDLER: Lauren

    

   Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
   But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
   this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
   begin with.

    

   You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
   power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
   Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
   solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
   Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
   easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
   her in trouble and arrested.

    

   But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
   respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
   made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
   deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
   Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
   the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
   military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
   it had been pushing for.

    

   So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
   the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
   to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
   demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.

    

   Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
   to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
   against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
   will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-14 20:55:23",1,"2012-02-28 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3392735_re-alpha-insight-ukraine-moscow-kiev-spat-ua111-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3433718,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
	CODE
","   Agree
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:59:46 -0600 (CST)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>; Korena Zucha<zucha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   I'll bet cash they are connected to the Austin guys busted for the DNC
   plot plus some of the Austin Earth First jabronis. 
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:51:44 -0600
   To: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>, Alpha List
   <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Have we seen Deep Green Resistance carry-out acts of violence in the
   past? 

   On 11/16/2011 6:38 PM, Korena Zucha wrote:

     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.
","2011-11-18 21:17:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3433718_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3434642,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3434642_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3438302,"FW: CIA head of analysis fired
","I wanted to forward these comments from George to the entire team so that
everyone at Stratfor is aware of the incredible opportunity/challenge we are
faced with. 

Iser 

-----Original Message-----
From: George Friedman [mailto:gfriedman@stratfor.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:13 AM
To: analysts@stratfor.com; exec@stratfor.com
Subject: CIA head of analysis fired

Jamie Miscik, Deputy Director of Intelligence at the CIA was fired today. As
DDI, she ran the analytic shop. According to media reports, she was fired
for squandering resources on day to day reports while ignoring the broad
trends. In other words, she was fired for looking at the trees and being
unable to see the forest. She was also accused of spending too much time
updating policy makers and too little time trying to grasp the broad
trends--giving customers what they wanted instead of what they needed. In
the end, it was her customers that turned on her.
My charge against her was and remains that she took no pride in her craft
and turned intelligence into PR and shoddy process. She and her gang are now
history.

This gives Stratfor an enormous, historic opportunity. The CIA model of
analysis has been invalidated. The ponderous, process driven machine that
could only manage the small things now needs to be replaced by a robust,
visionary, courageous analytic system. Stratfor has the opportunity to show
the way. In fact, we are showing the way. Everyone in Langley knows that we
do things they have never been able to do with a small fraction of their
resources. They have always asked how we did it. We can now show them and
maybe they can learn.

Our annual and decade forecast will, I guarantee you, be read by everyone at
the CIA. They are looking for new models and they are looking at us. Every
ounce of excellence that Stratfor owns will go into those two pieces. This
will not only be good business, it will serve our country. They will be a
road map to the craft of intelligence.

Allan Dulles said that intelligence was a craft. It is not a mass production
line. The architects of misbegotten process in intelligence have failed and
are out. It is our chance to step to the plate. It's a rare moment and I
want everyone in intelligence to take a break from working to think, dream
and imagine. This is our chance to do it right. 

It is Stratfor's chance to make intelligence history and build a major
business at the same time. It is a moment I have been waiting for--and knew
was coming--since 1996, when George Tenet was appointed DCI and Stratfor was
founded. I, for one, am going to show them how it's done. I invite each of
you to join me. This, ladies and gentlemen, is it.
","2004-12-29 16:54:06",1,"2012-02-27 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3438302_fw-cia-head-of-analysis-fired-.html","iser@stratfor.com","","allstratfor@stratfor.com",""
3454924,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
 CODE
","   It might sound strange, but some of the most radical deep ecology people
   actually believe that there are too many people on the earth and that
   radical steps must be taken to reduce the population and save the earth.
    This strain of deep ecology is a clear reflection of the way the movement
   was heavily influenced by people like Martin Heidegger who were also
   committed to Nazism. Yes, Nazis were radical environmentalists.....
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:08:31 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Jesus I spent a couple of hours researching these guys - weird is an
   understatement. Apparently they met yesterday a couple of blocks away from
   my house to consolidate their leadership, go through basic indoctrination
   and plan more events. As far as I can tell, the Austin chapter is not
   nearly as radical as the central Lierre Keith DGR whose website is a
   treasure trove of incitment to passive resistance, blowing up energy
   infra, basic counter intel and legal guidance.

   Their ideology seems to be a mix of hardcore environmentalism, anarchism,
   radical feminism and the general notion that we need to go back living
   sustainably like the american indians by blowing up every pipeline and
   cell tower on the planet. Unlike the central DGR, Austin DGR doesn't seem
   to have defined targets and goals (their meeting yesterday was a
   brainstorming session on what radical environmentalism means in Austin).

   just a few nice quotes from their central website:

   The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power
   with as much personal integrity as possible; it is to dismantle those
   systems.

   What would we do if Nazis had invaded, and they were vacuuming the oceans,
   scalping native forests, damming every river, changing the climate, and
   putting carcinogens into every mother's breast milk, and into the flesh of
   your children, your lover, your mother, into your own flesh? How much
   worse would the damage have to get? Would you resist? If there existed a
   resistance movement, would you join it?

   On 11/16/11 7:42 PM, Victoria Allen wrote:

     WHOA.
     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
     Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:38:01 -0600
     To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
     ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
     Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
     CODE
     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-17 14:01:00",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3454924_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3464416,"Re: Encryption Guidance
","   Is this what you are thinking? Does it need to be more detailed? What
   types of content am I missing?

   PGP should be emphasized and enforced for all executives and other
   employees designated by their supervisors. Content that fits into the
   following categories should be encrypted although this list is not
   all-inclusive. Should there be any doubt about whether something you are
   writing should be encrypted, err on the side of caution and encrypt it
   anyway.
   o    Company financial data, to include budgets and forecasts
   o    Certain client names and related contract details as deemed necessary
   by Meredith Friedman and Beth Bronder. Note that the use of code names,
   which will also be determined by Meredith and Beth along with  the
   Briefers, is not a replacement for using PGP.
   o    Sensitive personnel information, to include salaries and
   health-related information 
   o    Sensitive sourcing insight. For any questions about which of your
   sources may fit into this category, please contact Stick.
   o    CEO travel itinerary, including flight and hotel information and
   dates of travel
   o    Sensitive executive-level discussions

   On 10/11/2010 8:58 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

 Korena, Would you have time to tackle a draft ?

 scott stewart wrote:

 IT doesn't have to be super long, but we should tell people that we
 need to use encryption whenever we are dealing with very sensitive
 insight, client information, etc. and maybe provide a couple notional
 examples.

 *From:* burton@stratfor.com [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, October 11, 2010 8:33 AM
 *To:* Scott Stewart; 'Korena Zucha'
 *Cc:* Michael D. Mooney; Korena Zucha; Anya Alfano
 *Subject:* Re: Encryption Guidance

 Suggestions?

 I know PGP doesn't work on lists.

 Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

 *From: *\"scott stewart\" <scott.stewart@stratfor.com>

 *Date: *Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:17:45 -0400

 *To: *'Korena Zucha'<zucha@stratfor.com>; <burton@stratfor.com>

 *Cc: *'Michael D. Mooney'<mooney@stratfor.com>; 'Korena
 Zucha'<korena.zucha@stratfor.com>; 'Anya Alfano'<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>

 *Subject: *RE: Encryption Guidance

 We need detailed guidance for our employees.

 *From:* Korena Zucha [mailto:zucha@stratfor.com]
 *Sent:* Monday, October 11, 2010 12:06 AM
 *To:* burton@stratfor.com
 *Cc:* Michael D. Mooney; Scott Stewart; Korena Zucha; Anya Alfano
 *Subject:* Re: Encryption Guidance

 It was included in the security recs doc but was very top level. What
 else do we need?

 PGP should be emphasized and enforced for all executives and other
 designated employees. This should be applied for all employees dealing
 with all things sensitive, financial, client-related (scope of work
 and financial), CEO travel, and other executive-level sensitive
 discussions as deemed necessary.

 On 10/10/2010 1:09 PM, burton@stratfor.com
 <mailto:burton@stratfor.com> wrote:

 We need to send out guidance on when to use encryption.
 
 Believe we did that not to long ago? 
 
 
 Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
","2010-10-11 20:46:41",1,"2012-03-01 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3464416_re-encryption-guidance-.html","zucha@stratfor.com","","burton@stratfor.com,mooney@stratfor.com,scott.stewart@stratfor.com,anya.alfano@stratfor.com,korena.zucha@stratfor.com",""
3496753,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
	CODE
","   Agree
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:59:46 -0600 (CST)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>; Korena Zucha<zucha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   I'll bet cash they are connected to the Austin guys busted for the DNC
   plot plus some of the Austin Earth First jabronis. 
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:51:44 -0600
   To: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>, Alpha List
   <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Have we seen Deep Green Resistance carry-out acts of violence in the
   past? 

   On 11/16/2011 6:38 PM, Korena Zucha wrote:

     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.
","2011-11-18 21:17:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3496753_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3507960,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
 CODE
","   It might sound strange, but some of the most radical deep ecology people
   actually believe that there are too many people on the earth and that
   radical steps must be taken to reduce the population and save the earth.
    This strain of deep ecology is a clear reflection of the way the movement
   was heavily influenced by people like Martin Heidegger who were also
   committed to Nazism. Yes, Nazis were radical environmentalists.....
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:08:31 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Jesus I spent a couple of hours researching these guys - weird is an
   understatement. Apparently they met yesterday a couple of blocks away from
   my house to consolidate their leadership, go through basic indoctrination
   and plan more events. As far as I can tell, the Austin chapter is not
   nearly as radical as the central Lierre Keith DGR whose website is a
   treasure trove of incitment to passive resistance, blowing up energy
   infra, basic counter intel and legal guidance.

   Their ideology seems to be a mix of hardcore environmentalism, anarchism,
   radical feminism and the general notion that we need to go back living
   sustainably like the american indians by blowing up every pipeline and
   cell tower on the planet. Unlike the central DGR, Austin DGR doesn't seem
   to have defined targets and goals (their meeting yesterday was a
   brainstorming session on what radical environmentalism means in Austin).

   just a few nice quotes from their central website:

   The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power
   with as much personal integrity as possible; it is to dismantle those
   systems.

   What would we do if Nazis had invaded, and they were vacuuming the oceans,
   scalping native forests, damming every river, changing the climate, and
   putting carcinogens into every mother's breast milk, and into the flesh of
   your children, your lover, your mother, into your own flesh? How much
   worse would the damage have to get? Would you resist? If there existed a
   resistance movement, would you join it?

   On 11/16/11 7:42 PM, Victoria Allen wrote:

     WHOA.
     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
     Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:38:01 -0600
     To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
     ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
     Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
     CODE
     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-17 14:01:00",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3507960_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3517427,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3517427_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3527637,"Global Vantage Clients 
","","2006-02-07 23:51:07",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3527637_global-vantage-clients-.html","glass@stratfor.com","","service@stratfor.com","attach/150/150549_GV Client List rev. 1-31-06.xls"
3538211,"Re: Fwd: Weekly Executive Report
","   40k is a lot of money to spend on that obviously.  It probably prices the
   solution out of our means right now. 

   Michael Mooney wrote:

     Before you come at me with fire in your eyes,  I intended to discuss the
     PGP solution with Stick then Fred before you, not leave you out of the
     loop.   I'll be free to discuss it with you at your leisure. 

     This is a pgp corporation solution, and it's not free.   But when I
     removed cost from my constraints in my ongoing search for a large enough
     hammer to smash the PGP problems -- it's where I ended up.

     I've included the initial quote, we can talk about the features provided
     and guarantees made by PGP corp at your leisure.

     --Mike

     -------- Original Message --------

     Subject: Weekly Executive Report                    
        Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 09:35:20 -0400            
        From: scott stewart <scott.stewart@stratfor.com> 
          To: <exec@stratfor.com>                        

     I spent a good portion of my week putting out little fires caused by
     people issues.  Management would be so much easier if people were not
     involved.  J

      

     I met with Mike yesterday to discuss a solution for our PGP encryption
     woes. He has found a decent solution, but it looks like it will cost us
     some money to put  it in place.

      

      

      

     OSINT

      

     Things are churning along fine.

      

     Kristen is working with Darryl and Jeff to get the WNC/NTIS feed turned
     on. Like the BBC feed, this is going to create some challenges as far as
     sorting through it, but having too much information is better than not
     having enough.

      

     As noted last week, and mentioned mid week in another conversation, we
     are ready to switch Antonia over to work with Meredith on the
     confederation project when the funding is available to hire Zac. He is
     living in Spain, so he would be a contract employee with no benefits.

      

      

      

     Collection

      

     Meredith and I are continuing on with the source review process. We
     worked with Mark for several hours this week and only got about 2/3 of
     the way through his exhaustive (and exhausting source list). He
     continues to amaze me as far as his ability to interact with people in
     Africa. I've been working with him to share more of his knowledge and to
     ensure that he reports all the insight he receives, and I have noticed a
     big difference over the past several weeks.

      

     Aaron continues to make some good contacts in Yemen. He will be home in
     mid-to-late May.

      

     Jen will be going to China  the last two weeks of June.

      

     Rodger will be heading to South East Asia  

      

      

     Tactical

      

     Sean is finishing up the Iranian Intelligence Services piece. I think it
     is looking pretty good. I am unaware of anyone else doing a piece like
     this and think it will get a good response. We are thinking about
     handling Indian intelligence services next any feedback from you on that
     .choice would be appreciated.

      

     Ben is working on the World Cup Security analysis with Bayless and Mark.
     We should have it done within the next couple weeks. They met with
     Grant's team to talk about marketing the report this week. I missed that
     meeting due to a conflicting meeting with George, Peter and Rodger,  so
     I don't have the details of what transpired.

      

     I took Intern Ryan Abbey out to lunch yesterday. He is currently
     finishing up his Master's thesis and is in the process of going through
     his BI/polygraph to work for Northrop/Grumman on a CIA contract as a
     terrorism analyst. We will probably lose him in the fall to that job.
      Monitor Brian Oates graduates with his BA in May and will be going to
     the same place a few months earlier.  We will have Marija take Brian's
     weekend hours when he leaves. Brian will be less of a loss than Ryan.

      

     Posey got the Amazon CIS piece written this week and is just now
     finishing up the Johnson Controls CIS project.

      

     Anya is working on a CIS project for Walmart with Lauren's help.

      

     After George's \"What is important\" meeting on Wednesday, we had a good
     training meeting on Thursday to talk about the mechanics of how we in
     tactical determine what is important and how we develop the analytical
     framework required to examine tactical topics.  We also talked about
     paradigm shifts and forecasting.

      

      

     Scott Stewart

     STRATFOR

     Office: 814 967 4046

     Cell: 814 573 8297

     scott.stewart@stratfor.com

     www.stratfor.com

   --

   George Friedman

   Founder and CEO

   Stratfor

   700 Lavaca Street

   Suite 900

   Austin, Texas 78701

   Phone  512-744-4319

   Fax  512-744-4334
","2010-04-24 19:52:17",1,"2012-03-01 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3538211_re-fwd-weekly-executive-report-.html","gfriedman@stratfor.com","","mooney@stratfor.com",""
3545647,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3545647_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3546963,"Re: Encryption Guidance
","OMG

This is more difficult than getting a cable cleared through Foggy Bottom.

\"Humm...from security I see.\"  FSO Milo Henchcock perches with his red
pen in his bony fingers looking for dangling participles. 

scott stewart wrote:
> We should also note somewhere that SPARK is encrypted and is an acceptable
> way to discuss sensitive subjects and transfer files. 
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 1:24 PM
> To: Korena Zucha
> Cc: 'Michael D. Mooney'; 'Nate Hughes'; 'Scott Stewart'; 'Korena Zucha';
> 'Anya Alfano'
> Subject: Re: Encryption Guidance
>
> ? Encryption is a tool that we are not fully integrating but need to
> based on the nature of our business, which draws the interests of
> many-some of which are hostile to our mission. PGP should be emphasized
> and enforced for all executives and other designated employees. Should
> there be any doubt about whether something you are writing is sensitive
> and should be encrypted, err on the side of caution and encrypt it
> anyway. Common sense should prevail. Types of information that need to
> be encrypted include:
> o Sensitive company financial data should be encrypted on a case by case
> basis, which will be left to the discretion of the sender.
> o Certain client names and related contract details as deemed necessary
> by CEO.
> o Sensitive personnel information, to include SSNs, salaries and
> health-related information
> o Sensitive INSIGHT or the identification of sources. For any questions
> about what sources may fit into this category, please contact Scott
> Stewart.
> o CEO travel itinerary, including flight and hotel information and dates
> of travel
> o Sensitive executive-level discussions
>
>
> ** Can I get only this in a word document? Thanks
>
>
> Korena Zucha wrote:
>   
>> Incorporated with Fred's comments from yesterday as well. Let me know
>> if you need anything else.
>>
>> On 10/12/2010 8:11 AM, Fred Burton wrote:
>>     
>>> note changes
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* Korena Zucha [mailto:zucha@stratfor.com]
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 12, 2010 8:08 AM
>>> *To:* Fred Burton
>>> *Cc:* 'Michael D. Mooney'; 'Nate Hughes'; 'Scott Stewart'; 'Korena
>>> Zucha'; 'Anya Alfano'
>>> *Subject:* Re: Encryption Guidance
>>>
>>> Updated. Any other changes?
>>>
>>> Encryption is a tool that we are not fully integrating but need to
>>> based on the nature of our business. PGP should be emphasized and
>>> used by all employees. (delete - enforced for all executives and
>>> other designated employees. As guidance, content that fits into the
>>> following categories should be encrypted although this list is not
>>> all-inclusive. Should there be any doubt about whether something you
>>> are writing should be encrypted or if you think something is
>>> sensitive, err on the side of caution and encrypt it anyway. Common
>>> sense should prevail.
>>> o Sensitive company financial data should be encrypted on a case by
>>> case basis left to the discretion of the sender
>>> o Certain client names and related contract details as deemed
>>> necessary by the CEO . (delete the rest - by Meredith Friedman and
>>> Beth Bronder. Note that the use of code names, which will also be
>>> determined by Meredith and Beth along with the Briefers, is not a
>>> replacement for using PGP.
>>> o Sensitive personnel information, to include SSNs, salaries and
>>> health-related information
>>> o Sensitive sourcing insight. For any questions about what sources
>>> may fit into this category, contact Stick.
>>> o CEO travel itinerary, including flight and hotel information and
>>> dates of travel
>>> o Sensitive executive-level discussions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/12/2010 7:21 AM, Fred Burton wrote:
>>>       
>>>> sensitive company financial data on a case by case basis left to the
>>>> discretion of the sender
>>>>         
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 9.0.862 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3190 - Release Date:
>>> 10/11/10 01:34:00
>>>
>>>       
>
>   
","2010-10-12 19:35:58",1,"2012-03-01 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3546963_re-encryption-guidance-.html","burton@stratfor.com","","mooney@stratfor.com,hughes@stratfor.com,scott.stewart@stratfor.com,anya.alfano@stratfor.com,korena.zucha@stratfor.com,zucha@stratfor.com",""
3552067,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
	CODE
","   Agree
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:59:46 -0600 (CST)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>; Korena Zucha<zucha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   I'll bet cash they are connected to the Austin guys busted for the DNC
   plot plus some of the Austin Earth First jabronis. 
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:51:44 -0600
   To: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>, Alpha List
   <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Have we seen Deep Green Resistance carry-out acts of violence in the
   past? 

   On 11/16/2011 6:38 PM, Korena Zucha wrote:

     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.
","2011-11-18 21:17:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3552067_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3561263,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3561263_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3624171,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
","   this dude really gives the impression that Moscow calls the shots in Kiev

   so basically, Med gets pissed b/c Timo is blowing Putin and not him, so he
   whines to Putin and says drop the B and get behind Yanu like me. Putin
   says fine, Yanu gets excited and oversteps his boundaries, and now Putin
   is like fix this shit Med and Med is like okay, but we dont know what Med
   is actually gonna do to slap Yanu around

   so what's the couterargument to this? Does Russia really have this much
   influence over the situation?  this is something we need to address in
   ukraine reassessment

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111

   CODE: UA111
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   HANDLER: Lauren

    

   Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
   But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
   this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
   begin with.

    

   You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
   power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
   Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
   solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
   Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
   easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
   her in trouble and arrested.

    

   But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
   respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
   made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
   deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
   Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
   the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
   military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
   it had been pushing for.

    

   So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
   the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
   to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
   demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.

    

   Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
   to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
   against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
   will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-14 20:55:23",1,"2012-02-28 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3624171_re-alpha-insight-ukraine-moscow-kiev-spat-ua111-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3640451,"FW: email of Fred Burton
","   That's pretty cool!

   Aaric S. Eisenstein

   Stratfor

   SVP Publishing

   700 Lavaca St., Suite 900

   Austin, TX  78701

   512-744-4308

   512-744-4334 fax

   -----Original Message-----
   From: veni Markovski [mailto:venimarkovski@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Veni
   Markovski
   Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 4:46 PM
   To: service@stratfor.com
   Subject: email of Fred Burton

   Hi.

   I am looking for the e-mail of Mr. Burton. Would be glad, if you can send
   it.

   Thank you.

   Sincerely,

   Veni Markovski

   Senior Advisor for International Projects
   <http://www.daits.government.bg/>State Agency for IT and Communications
   <http://www.government.bg/>Council of Ministers | REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA
   ----------------
   email: <mailto:veni@veni.com>veni@veni.com | email2:
   <mailto:veni@daits.government.bg>veni@daits.government.bg
   office: +1-646-873-7708 | office2: +359-2-401-8008 | fax: +1-212-319-5955
   Bulgarian Consulate General, 121 E 62nd Str., New York, NY 10021, USA
","2008-08-11 00:02:43",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3640451_fw-email-of-fred-burton-.html","eisenstein@stratfor.com","","burton@stratfor.com,exec@stratfor.com",""
3871842,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
	CODE
","   Agree
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:59:46 -0600 (CST)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>; Korena Zucha<zucha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   I'll bet cash they are connected to the Austin guys busted for the DNC
   plot plus some of the Austin Earth First jabronis. 
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:51:44 -0600
   To: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>, Alpha List
   <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Have we seen Deep Green Resistance carry-out acts of violence in the
   past? 

   On 11/16/2011 6:38 PM, Korena Zucha wrote:

     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.
","2011-11-18 21:17:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3871842_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3940281,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3940281_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3963716,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3963716_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
3971285,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
 CODE
","   It might sound strange, but some of the most radical deep ecology people
   actually believe that there are too many people on the earth and that
   radical steps must be taken to reduce the population and save the earth.
    This strain of deep ecology is a clear reflection of the way the movement
   was heavily influenced by people like Martin Heidegger who were also
   committed to Nazism. Yes, Nazis were radical environmentalists.....
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:08:31 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Jesus I spent a couple of hours researching these guys - weird is an
   understatement. Apparently they met yesterday a couple of blocks away from
   my house to consolidate their leadership, go through basic indoctrination
   and plan more events. As far as I can tell, the Austin chapter is not
   nearly as radical as the central Lierre Keith DGR whose website is a
   treasure trove of incitment to passive resistance, blowing up energy
   infra, basic counter intel and legal guidance.

   Their ideology seems to be a mix of hardcore environmentalism, anarchism,
   radical feminism and the general notion that we need to go back living
   sustainably like the american indians by blowing up every pipeline and
   cell tower on the planet. Unlike the central DGR, Austin DGR doesn't seem
   to have defined targets and goals (their meeting yesterday was a
   brainstorming session on what radical environmentalism means in Austin).

   just a few nice quotes from their central website:

   The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power
   with as much personal integrity as possible; it is to dismantle those
   systems.

   What would we do if Nazis had invaded, and they were vacuuming the oceans,
   scalping native forests, damming every river, changing the climate, and
   putting carcinogens into every mother's breast milk, and into the flesh of
   your children, your lover, your mother, into your own flesh? How much
   worse would the damage have to get? Would you resist? If there existed a
   resistance movement, would you join it?

   On 11/16/11 7:42 PM, Victoria Allen wrote:

     WHOA.
     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
     Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:38:01 -0600
     To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
     ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
     Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
     CODE
     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-17 14:01:00",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/3971285_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
4009016,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/4009016_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
4035023,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
","   this dude really gives the impression that Moscow calls the shots in Kiev

   so basically, Med gets pissed b/c Timo is blowing Putin and not him, so he
   whines to Putin and says drop the B and get behind Yanu like me. Putin
   says fine, Yanu gets excited and oversteps his boundaries, and now Putin
   is like fix this shit Med and Med is like okay, but we dont know what Med
   is actually gonna do to slap Yanu around

   so what's the couterargument to this? Does Russia really have this much
   influence over the situation?  this is something we need to address in
   ukraine reassessment

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111

   CODE: UA111
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   HANDLER: Lauren

    

   Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
   But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
   this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
   begin with.

    

   You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
   power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
   Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
   solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
   Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
   easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
   her in trouble and arrested.

    

   But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
   respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
   made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
   deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
   Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
   the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
   military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
   it had been pushing for.

    

   So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
   the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
   to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
   demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.

    

   Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
   to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
   against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
   will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-14 20:55:23",1,"2012-02-28 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/4035023_re-alpha-insight-ukraine-moscow-kiev-spat-ua111-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
4061385,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/4061385_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
4151278,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
	CODE
","   Agree
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:59:46 -0600 (CST)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>; Korena Zucha<zucha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   I'll bet cash they are connected to the Austin guys busted for the DNC
   plot plus some of the Austin Earth First jabronis. 
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:51:44 -0600
   To: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>, Alpha List
   <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Have we seen Deep Green Resistance carry-out acts of violence in the
   past? 

   On 11/16/2011 6:38 PM, Korena Zucha wrote:

     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.
","2011-11-18 21:17:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/4151278_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
4199951,"Re: [CT] Anonymous and Occupy divergence...in the Iowa caucuses
","   Actually that is interesting analysis. It is domestic and not
   geopolitical, but it is certainly interesting to watch. 
   From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>
   Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 21:30:51 -0600 (CST)
   To: CT AOR <ct@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Peter Zeihan <peter.zeihan@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [CT] Anonymous and Occupy divergence...in the Iowa caucuses
   Ironically after all my Anonymous bashing, i want to point out a very
   minor development. Mainly because it's funny to me. 

   I mentioned the Occupy Des Moines protest last week sometime.  It is very
   small, and a lot like Austin's.  They have been planning for a few weeks
   to Occupy the Iowa caucuses.  For those of you that don't know about the
   practice of the most important local democratic process in the world, the
   Iowa Caucuses are the first round of true competition between presidential
   candidates.  Unlike voting in a primary, it's more like a town hall
   meeting with much debate and discussion--a very open democratic form.  A
   candidate doesn't have to win Iowa necessarily to get the presidential
   nomination, but it serves to weed most of the bad ones early on in the
   race  (Iowans are fallible, they have made mistakes too). It's the one
   time that Iowa has an influence on politics, and I often say it is Iowa's
   one good thing.  I think it's January 3. 

   Back to the protestors.  Their plan has been developing to \"occupy\"
   candidate's offices.  That really means protest in front of the offices,
   which if you think of all the little shitty strip malls you see around,
   one small section would be a campaign office.  They have no security, and
   allow a lot of access to candidates if they choose to campaign in Iowa.
   The Occupy Des Moines group are not at all planning to disrupt the
   Caucuses functioning.  Though I wouldn't be surprised if they protested
   outside caucus meeting places, or more likely, brought their signs and
   slogans in with them.  These people are experienced organizers (as it
   comes to des moines), and know that if they have a political impact, one
   of the best places to aim it is the Caucuses. 

   Now here comes \"Anonymous.\"  Those of you that read the Wired background
   know that their real effect has been in popularizing \"memes.\"  One of
   these was actually Occupy Wall Street- 
   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/occupy-wall-street-anonymous-connection_n_1021665.html 
   The mob of computer users and protest movement have been running on
   parallel tracks for awhile, and have served to mutually reinforce each
   other.

   Whoever from Anonymous made this new video about the Caucuses has made an
   ass out of themselves.  The video recommends actually shutting down the
   Caucuses.  That is both tactically dumb for the Occupy movement, but also
   totally antithetical to its general ideology.  For example, a Caucus
   functions very similarly to the Occupy General Assembly meetings--direct
   participatory democracy. 

   The Des Moines organizers have already spoken up- saying they have nothing
   to do with this \"Anonymous\" bullshit.  I'm happy to see I left them with
   some sense of realism.  This little event is not going to matter very
   much, but it shows how uncoordinated Anonymous is. 

   See the article below, the video is at the link. 

   Video calls for shutting down Iowa caucuses; the group Anonymous claims
   responsibility
   Jason Clayworth
   4:55 PM, Nov 6, 2011
   http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/06/video-calls-for-shutting-down-iowa-caucuses-the-group-anonymous-claims-responsibility/

   An anarchist-style movement that has caught the attention of the FBI and
   taken credit for hacking into military and corporate websites has now
   claimed responsibility for creating a video that urges its supporters to
   shut down the Iowa caucuses.

   Local authorities say they are aware of the video, are preparing for
   possible action by the group and are in contact with the presidential
   campaigns about the issue.

   A computer-generated voice in the online video, which had received more
   than 1,600 views by Sunday evening, says, \"Both parties are desecrating
   the American democracy and committing crimes against humanity on behalf of
   the American people.\"

   It continues: \"The primaries and caucuses put on by these parties are part
   of an elaborate scam that deceives the public into voting for candidates
   that serve the private interests of the mega corporations. These parties
   have deliberately driven tens of millions of people into poverty.\"

   It later says: \"We are calling upon you to occupy the campaign offices of
   presidential headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa, on Dec. 27, and peacefully
   shut down the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3.\"

   The group is believed to have no centralized operational leadership and
   appears to be piggybacking on the Occupy Des Moines movement.

   But Occupy Des Moines leaders say there's a difference: The Iowa group's
   planned sit-ins at presidential campaign headquarters are not intended to
   shut down the Iowa caucuses, they say. Rather, they want to target
   presidential candidates and big-moneyed corporations that activists say
   are pulling the strings behind the scenes.

   While there are similarities between the groups' beliefs, they are
   separate, Occupy Des Moines participants emphasized Sunday.

   \"I don't like it one bit,\" former Rep. Ed Fallon, a Des Moines Democrat
   and participant in Occupy Des Moines, said of the video on Sunday. \"It
   doesn't fit with my definition of Gandhi- and Martin Luther King Jr.-style
   nonviolence. The core of nonviolent action is truth. And if you are doing
   everything you can to be truthful, then you should be up front and
   transparent. No distorting of your voice or hiding.\"

   FBI sees Anonymous as security threat

   The Anonymous movement has become a potential national security threat,
   according to an article published in September by the Associated Press.

   The FBI has carried out more than 75 raids and arrested at least 16 people
   this year in connection with illegal Internet hacking jobs for which the
   group has claimed responsibility, according to the AP. One demonstration
   disrupted traffic in San Francisco as a protest after the Bay Area Rapid
   Transit system shut off cell service to deter a planned protest of a
   police shooting on a subway platform.

   The group also claimed responsibility for hacking the online payment
   processing center PayPal after it had suspended WikiLeaks' account after
   WikiLeaks published sensitive U.S. government intelligence documents, the
   AP reported.

   Three of the Iowa campaign headquarters of presidential candidates are in
   Urbandale - those of Michele Bachmann, a U.S. representative from
   Minnesota; former Godfather's Pizza CEO Herman Cain; and former
   Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

   Urbandale police are aware of the video, and while they aren't releasing
   details of their security plans, authorities will be prepared should the
   demonstrations take an illegal turn, Urbandale officer Randy Peterson said
   Sunday.

   \"We'll just try to address any issue as they arise,\" Peterson said.

   Occupy movement: We don't plan to interfere with voting

   Occupy Des Moines, an offshoot of an anti-Wall Street protest group, last
   week announced plans to launch nonviolent sit-ins inside campaign offices
   in the final week before the Iowa caucuses. Some of the group's members
   have said they expect large-scale arrests, but they have emphasized they
   do not plan to commit violence or interfere with voting.

   \"There might be some overlap\" in what the groups believe, \"but Anonymous
   speaks for themselves and the Occupy Movement speaks for itself,\" said
   David Goodner, a demonstrator who often speaks on behalf of Occupy Des
   Moines. \"Whether the public can understand that or not, I'm not sure, but
   for me there's a clear difference.\"

   State officials were preparing for a variety of public safety scenarios
   associated with the Iowa caucuses before the video was released, said John
   Benson, a public information officer for Iowa's Homeland Security and
   Emergency Management Division

   \"Obviously with the video that they've put out and some of the other work
   they're doing, that certainly increases your overall awareness,\" Benson
   said. \"But to say we're going to do something specific in our planning
   process, we can't say that right now, but it certainly has our attention.\"

   Party leaders: Let caucuses proceed

   Republican Party of Iowa Chairman Matt Strawn said the party's state
   central committee will discuss the situation at its next meeting.

   \"Successive generations of Iowans of both political parties have worked
   awfully hard to make sure Iowans have this opportunity to participate in
   this first-in-the-nation caucus,\" Strawn said. \"I certainly will do
   anything in my power to keep outside agitators from ruining something that
   a lot of people have worked very hard for over a long period of time.\"

   The integrity of the Iowa caucuses would be eroded should attempts to shut
   them down be successful, said Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue
   Dvorsky.

   \"If anyone is coming and planning to make it so the participants of the
   caucus cannot have a civil and civic conversation, then of course that
   would erode the integrity of the caucuses, and it flies in the face of
   what the caucuses are,\" Dvorsky said. \"They're the most basic
   long-standing tradition in this country of neighbors coming together to
   talk about political issues.\"

   She continued: \"I'm hoping Iowans can protect their ability to speak
   freely and respectfully with their neighbors.\"

   About Anonymous

   Anonymous emerged in 2003 from an Internet chat channel where members
   organized web incidents for their own amusement.

   By 2008, the prankster nature of Anonymous morphed into \"hacktivism,\"
   where members sabotaged websites and leaked confidential information for
   political purposes, according to law enforcement authorities.

   The group has no formal leadership and is generally considered to be more
   of a movement than an organization. As the name implies, its members
   generally don't identify themselves.

   The group has generally concentrated on Internet hacking. This summer, it
   claimed credit for hacking into a Booz Allen Hamilton website and leaking
   email addresses of 90,000 U.S. military personnel and hacking a Monsanto
   Co. website and releasing personal data on 2,500 employees.

   Sources: USA Today and the Associated Press

   --
   Sean Noonan
   Tactical Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: +1 512-279-9479 A| M: +1 512-758-5967
   www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-10 11:10:37",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/4199951_re-ct-anonymous-and-occupy-divergence-in-the-iowa-caucuses-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:ct@stratfor.com","ct@stratfor.com,peter.zeihan@stratfor.com",""
4523156,"Re: diary for comment - greece and shit - 20111101
","   A few comments in red...

   On 11/1/11 9:39 PM, Kevin Stech wrote:

     PS - probably will change the ending. i was in a hurry to wrap it up and
     got kind of snappy there. suggestions welcome.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Kevin Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Analyst List\" <analysts@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Tuesday, November 1, 2011 9:25:44 PM
     Subject: diary for comment - greece and shit - 20111101

     I actually kind of strayed from the discussion notes quite a bit, but I
     wanted to capture all the buzz around Draghi and the ECB right now too.
     Have at it.

     On Nov. 1, two interconnected events cast into sharp relief the problems
     and potential solutions Europe currently faces.

      

     Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou announced late Oct. 31 that he
     would be putting the question of the ongoing Greek bailout and austerity
     programs to a referendum in the near future (we could say the referendum
     is expected by January?), dramatically accelerating the unfolding of the
     European debt crisis.  The holding of a referendum is not yet a
     certainty. First there will be a vote of confidence in Papandreou's
     leadership. It is entirely possible that the Greek government will
     collapse before even getting to the point of a referendum (as P holds a
     narrow majority in Parliament and some MP of the governing party
     rejected P's idea).

      

     Additionally, until the date for and text of the referendum is
     finalized, it is difficult to project how Greek voters will respond.
      Polling data shows that while 73% of Greeks favor eurozone membership,
     59% of Greeks oppose the bailout deal reached Oct. 27 in which a large
     tranche of Greek sovereign debt is written down by half, Greek banks are
     recapitalized, and Greece is sequestered from debt markets through the
     remainder of the decade.

      

     The problem for Greeks is the bailout-linked ingress by the so-called
     Troika - the EC, ECB and IMF - into Greek fiscal and economic affairs
     and the painful austerity program it aims to micromanage.  Wildly
     unpopular in the Hellenic Republic for its deflationary effect on the
     economy and the perceived loss of sovereignty alike, the
     bailout/austerity package faces a substantial chance of being voted down
     in a referendum. And since the loss of bailout funds would certainly
     lead to a default and forced exit from the Eurozone, EU leaders now have
     a timeframe within which to operate and a heightened sense of urgency
     driving them.

      

     As the shock of the Greek development sunk in, former head of the Bank
     of Italy Mario Draghi took over the presidency of the ECB from Trichet.
     As a member of the Troika, the ECB has been instrumental in the evolving
     and multifaceted European bailout process. As the apex of the European
     banking system it has protected banks by extending unlimited liquidity
     in the face of both subprime defaults and now sovereign default. It has
     even taken the contraversial step of protecting countries directly by
     purchasing public debt. And it has done all of this, under Trichet's
     relatively conservative management, while keeping a lid on the money
     supply.

      

     As a point of comparison, the Troika's more public bailout mechanism,
     the EFSF, has distributed a roughly comparable amount of bailout funds
     to sovereigns, but only after a hard fought battle over X months (two
     and a half months, it was announced by the EU on July 21 and got the
     final vote in Slovakia on October 13) in the parliaments of the 27 EU
     nations (it was voted by the eurozone 17 members). As the guarantees
     that back the facility are increasingly encumbered by commitments, it is
     anyone's guess where further guarantees or capital might come from or
     how long it might take to get them. Another X month process of drumming
     up sovereign guarantees would almost certainly be overtaken by events.
     Europe doesn't have enough surplus cash or room to add more sovereign
     debt. And reception of the EFSF's scheme to attract capital from foreign
     sovereigns, notably Russia and China, has received a chilly reception
     thus far.

      

     It is therefore no surprise that Draghi enters his new post under much
     scrutiny and anticipation. As a citizen of one of the much maligned
     PIIGS nations there is speculation that his interests may be aligned
     with the high debt states in desperate need of aid.  If nothing else,
     the break with Trichet's relatively staid monetary policy has invited
     this brand of wishful thinking. Regardless, as Europe's debt woes swell,
     the ECB has increasingly been mooted as the only failsafe left to stave
     off complete dissolution of the euro, recently by French President
     Nicolas Sarkozy himself. 

      

     And this brings us back to Greece.  The Troika's economic controls that
     have so inflamed Greece, that have moved the country significantly
     closer to a full and uncontrolled default, are the very measures that
     must be in place for an expanded application of the ECB's monetary
     powers to the crisis.  Without the ability to more directly manage the
     finances of bailout recipients, full ECB assistance becomes an exercise
     in \"moral hazard,\" with states reaping benefits instead of pain for
     their missteps.  The ECB and its implicit backer Germany have thus far
     ruled out expanded central bank aid to states, in part for this reason. 
     A Greek rejection of the bailout/austerity package makes expanded ECB
     support both more necessary and politically unpalatable to Germany.

      

     But as fiscal controls like expanded budgetary surveillance and
     automatic debt penalties take effect for the entire EU in the coming
     months, the ECB's response to the increasingly urgent crisis will only
     come under increased focus. As the Troika attempts to navigate the
     interplay between fiscal governance and bailout packages, a revised
     strategy should begin to emerge. STRATFOR's standing forecast is that
     the EU, as an intrinsically desynchronized union, will break apart. The
     timing of such an event is still unclear, but Europe is about to be
     presented with its first chance to validate us.

      

 --
 Adriano Bosoni - ADP
","2011-11-02 04:24:38",1,"2012-02-29 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/4523156_re-diary-for-comment-greece-and-shit-20111101-.html","adriano.bosoni@stratfor.com","","analysts@stratfor.com",""
4568398,"Re: discussion - the eurozone's doozy step
","   I think that P may be looking for internal legitimacy: the successive
   austerity plans imposed by the EU and the IMF have undermined his
   administration. Strikes and demonstrations, sometimes violent, are the
   order of the day. But the atmosphere is rare: 60% of Greeks see the
   Brussels-imposed measures as \"negative\" according to a poll published on
   Saturday. But in the same survey, over 70% of people said they want Greece
   to stay in the euro zone.

   On 11/1/11 9:02 AM, Christoph Helbling wrote:

     Does anybody know why Papandreou made this announcement? I can't find
     any explanation. Apparently he didn't even tell his finance minister.
     Papandreou also lost a MP over this issue.

     On 11/1/11 8:30 AM, Peter Zeihan wrote:

       aye - and until we know the actual wording of the referendum we
       shouldn't jump to many conclusions, esp since (as powers has pointed
       out repeatedly) default means that austerity is coming anyway it'd
       just be structured somewhat differently

       that said, a referendum cracks open some possibilities that heretofore
       didn't exist

       On 11/1/11 8:17 AM, Matthew Powers wrote:

         I think we should be careful in assuming the referendum fails. 
         While that certainly seems like the most likely outcome, the Greek
         government has a few months to paint a doomsday scenario of what
         leaving the Euro will mean.  The most recent polling data is a mixed
         bag, with some indicators suggesting the Greeks would vote against a
         referendum, and some indicating they may support it.  The austerity
         and other conditions are very unpleasant, but default and all that
         comes with it is hardly an enticing option. 

         Peter Zeihan wrote:

           The Greeks are going to have a referendum on the austerity/bailout
           program, which is in essence a vote on whether to stay in the euro
           and honor their debts or not. Barring some very creative
           campaigning I find it unlikely it will pass. Greece may be about
           to vote itself out of the eurozone.

           If that's the case, then Europe's got about three months to
           prepare. Yes its a bit doomsday, but actually having a very clear
           deadline like that might be just what the doctor ordered. They
           know exactly how long they've got and exactly what the problem is
           both in scale and scope.

           On 11/1/11 4:25 AM, Benjamin Preisler wrote:

             This will be really exciting. I guess they kind of have to do it
             though. The deal offered to them might be economically
             semi-attractive, it also signs away Greek sovereignty for an
             undetermined amount of years though. If Greece says no, it'll
             probably have to leave the Eurozone, in other words the EU,
             though. And good look on those interest rates after that
             Portugal, Spain and Italy. This is crazy, crazy stuff, it also
             took back decision-making on this affair back to Athens for the
             first time since arguably the first bailout package - either
             temporarily or for good I would say, for better or for worse.

             On 11/01/2011 03:06 AM, Peter Zeihan wrote:

               Well this'll get exciting

               On Oct 31, 2011, at 9:01 PM, Michael Wilson
               <michael.wilson@stratfor.com> wrote:

                 Some clarity from these articles. The referendum won't be
                 until next year, probably January. But there will be a vote
                 on whether to have the referendum, this week, on Friday, and
                 it will be tied to a confidence vote which he is expected to
                 pass with 3 votes

                 Greek PM gambles on referendum for new debt deal; vote
                 expected early 2012

                  
                 http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/markets/greek-prime-minister-calls-referendum-on-new-debt-deal-no-date-given/2011/10/31/gIQA5NdjZM_story.html

                 By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, October 31, 4:39 PM

                 ATHENS, Greece - Taking a huge political gamble, Greece's
                 prime minister announced Monday that his debt-strapped
                 country will hold a referendum on the new European debt deal
                 reached last week - the first such vote in 37 years.

                 Prime Minister George Papandreou appeared to take many
                 lawmakers by surprise by saying that a hard-bargained
                 agreement that took months for Europe's leaders to hammer
                 out will be put to a public ballot.
                 He gave no date or other details on the proposed referendum,
                 which would be the first in Greece since 1974, when the
                 monarchy was abolished by a landslide vote months after the
                 collapse of a military dictatorship.

                 \"This will be the referendum: The citizen will be called
                 upon to say a big `yes' or a big `no' to the new loan
                 arrangement,\" Papandreou told Socialist members of
                 parliament. \"This is a supreme act of democracy and of
                 patriotism for the people to make their own decision ... We
                 have a duty to promote the role and the responsibility of
                 the citizen.\"
                 The move allows Socialist lawmakers - who have been vilified
                 by an increasingly hostile public during months of strikes,
                 sit-ins and violent protests over rounds of austerity
                 measures - to pass the responsibility for the country's fate
                 to the Greek people themselves.

                 Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos, a constitutional law
                 professor, said the referendum was called after opposition
                 parties repeatedly failed to side with the government in
                 negotiations between Greece and other eurozone members.
                 \"Greece is living through a drama, from which it must be
                 released by asking the people to express its will,\"
                 Venizelos told parliament.

                 \"Each citizen will make his own decision, with
                 responsibility, in a process that will provide a national
                 sense of relief and recovery.\"

                 Later he told private Antenna television: \"It is very clear:
                 The new agreement will be submitted to parliament for
                 approval and then submitted to the judgment of the Greek
                 people ... the Greek people can of course say `no' but must
                 bear in mind the consequences of that decision.\"
                 Venizelos indicated the referendum would be held early next
                 year, after weeks of complex negotiations to finalize
                 details of the new agreement.

                 The new debt deal aims to seek 50 percent losses for private
                 holders of Greek bonds and provide the troubled eurozone
                 member with EUR100 billion ($140 billion) in additional
                 rescue loans.

                 Papandreou's government has seen its majority reduced to
                 just three seats in parliament and its approval ratings
                 plummet amid harsh austerity measures that are sending the
                 country into a fourth year of recession in 2012.

                 The EU statistics agency Eurostat estimated in a report
                 issued Monday that unemployment in Greece reached 17.6
                 percent in July - even higher than the Greek estimate for
                 that month of 16.5 percent.

                 \"This is just the latest twist in the unfolding Greek
                 tragedy,\" said Sony Kapoor, managing director of Re-Define,
                 a London-based think tank.

                 \"With an irresponsible opposition that is promising Greek
                 voters the moon, it is very difficult to see how this
                 referendum could be won under the ongoing gut-wrenching
                 austerity.\"

                 Greece calls referendum on EU bail-out
                 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/68748490-03f5-11e1-98bc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1cPlCODKu
                 Last updated: October 31, 2011 10:46 pm
                 By Kerin Hope in Athens, Peter Spiegel in Brussels and Telis
                 Demos in New York
                 Greek Prime Minister George PapandreouGetty

                 Greece's prime minister unexpectedly announced a referendum
                 to approve a second EU bail-out deal for his austerity-hit
                 country, less than a week after it was agreed with
                 international creditors at a European Union summit.

                 George Papandreou made the pledge on Monday night in a
                 speech to lawmakers in his fractious PanHellenic Socialist
                 Movement (Pasok) party but did not set a specific date for
                 the vote.

                 \"We have faith in our citizens, we believe in their judgment
                 and therefore in their decision,\" Mr Papandreou said after
                 rejecting a call for early elections by some socialist
                 politicians. \"All the country's political forces should
                 support the [bail-out] agreement. The citizens will do the
                 same once they are fully informed.\"

                 The premier's move reinforced concerns that Greece's fraught
                 domestic politics are spiralling out of control amid growing
                 popular anger over public sector job cuts and tax increases.
                 Strikes and violent demonstrations have become frequent in
                 Athens and other cities.

                 The referendum also looked likely to cause alarm in
                 Brussels, Paris and Berlin after Mr Papandreou's assurances
                 at Wednesday's summit that Greece was determined to maintain
                 a steady pace of reform.

                 Thanks to some help from the European Commission, we have a
                 bit more clarity on where European leaders will be spending
                 the new EUR130bn in Greek bail-out aid

                 One senior EU official told the Financial Times that Mr
                 Papandreou had appeared reticent about the components of the
                 bail-out package during talks at last week's summit of EU
                 presidents and prime ministers but no one was prepared for
                 the referendum announcement that came \"like a bolt out of
                 the blue\".
                 \"I don't think anyone expected this,\" the official said.
                 \"The calculation has to be this is the only way [Papandreou]
                 believes he can get this through.\"

                 \"With an irresponsible opposition that is promising Greek
                 voters the moon, it is very difficult to see how this
                 referendum could be won,\" added Sony Kapoor, head of
                 Re-Define, an economic consultancy. \"The decision is good
                 for democracy but is likely to make the euro crisis worse by
                 heightening uncertainty in this very fragile environment.\"

                 The announcement exacerbated declines in the euro and
                 equities, as investors feared that angry Greek voters could
                 derail the painstakingly negotiated plan.

                 The euro fell to a session low of $1.3827, down more than 2
                 per cent on the day and erasing its gains from last week,
                 when the deal was first announced. US stocks accelerated
                 their decline as well, with the S&P 500 index ending the day
                 down 2.5 per cent. It was the index's worst one-day fall in
                 nearly a month, ending what had been stocks' best month
                 since 1991, with a gain of 10.7 per cent, on a sour note.

                 An opinion poll published on Sunday showed that more than 60
                 per cent of Greeks were opposed to the terms of the new
                 bail-out, which would include another 100,000 job losses
                 over the next three years and big cuts in pensions.

                 The vote would probably be held in January, when Greek
                 bondholders were expected to sign up for a voluntary 50 per
                 cent haircut being negotiated with the International
                 Institute of Finance, wrapping up the new bail-out package.
                 One Athens banker said: \"This is a worrying decision by the
                 prime minister. It could derail the whole process even
                 before it's properly started.\"

                 The premier also announced that a vote of confidence in his
                 government would be held this week to endorse the referendum
                 proposal. That vote would follow a three-day debate on
                 Greece's worsening economic and social problems

                 Antonis Samaras, the conservative opposition leader,
                 immediately rejected the proposal, arguing that a referendum
                 was \"not the way out\".

                 \"The only option is elections and, like Ireland and
                 Portugal, to request the obviously necessary changes in the
                 bail-out agreement,\" he added, referring to proposals by
                 leaders of the two other eurozone member states that are
                 implementing EU-IMF programmes.

                 Mr Papandreou said this year he might call a referendum on
                 reforms of Greece's political system but ruled out a vote on
                 its relationship with the eurozone. His sudden reversal came
                 as a shock, according to party officials. \"This is another
                 upset in a situation that is already volatile,\" one said.

                 Greece to Hold Referendum on New Debt Deal
                 By NIKI KITSANTONIS and RACHEL DONADIO
                 Published: October 31, 2011

                   
                 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/world/europe/greece-to-hold-referendum-on-new-debt-deal.html
                 ATHENS - In a surprise move that jolted Europe and put his
                 political future in play, Prime Minister George A.
                 Papandreou announced Monday that his government would hold a
                 referendum on a new aid package for Greece, putting
                 austerity measures - and potentially membership in the euro
                 zone - to a popular vote for the first time.

                 Analysts said the vote on the austerity package did not
                 immediately threaten the comprehensive agreement reached by
                 European leaders last week to shore up the euro zone. More
                 likely, they said, a rejection by the voters would be
                 treated as a vote of no confidence in the government and
                 lead to early elections.

                 But the decision to go ahead with the vote introduces a note
                 of uncertainty in what had seemed to be a done deal. The
                 anxiety stirred up by those fears hammered United States
                 financial markets on Monday, showing once again how the
                 domestic politics of even the smallest members of the
                 European Union can create troubles that not only threaten
                 the currency but reverberate around the globe.

                 Addressing lawmakers on Monday evening, Mr. Papandreou said
                 the decision on whether to adopt the deal, which includes
                 fresh financial assistance, debt relief and deeply unpopular
                 austerity measures, properly belonged to the Greek people.

                 \"Let us allow the people to have the last word, let them
                 decide on the country's fate,\" he said.

                 The move was widely seen as an effort by Mr. Papandreou to
                 shore up his flagging political fortunes and to avoid the
                 instability of early elections. The center-right opposition
                 has opposed the bulk of the austerity program, and the prime
                 minister's popular support has dwindled as Greeks have been
                 hit by a seemingly endless series of tax increases and wage
                 and pension cuts.

                 A referendum would in effect shift responsibility for the
                 nation's painful economic choices from Mr. Papandreou's
                 Socialist Party onto the public.

                 By framing the debate as one of continuing to use the euro
                 or returning to the drachma, the move also appeared to give
                 the Greek government a bit more breathing room - and
                 leverage - in negotiations with Europe over the debt deal,
                 proving that a matter that some in Germany had hoped had
                 been settled last week still had the potential to be
                 reopened.

                 \"It's not motivated by the intention of some sort of
                 brinkmanship with Europe, but it may have this sort of
                 positive or negative effect,\" said George Pagoulatos, a
                 professor of European politics and economy at the Athens
                 University of Economics and Business. \"It raises the stakes.
                 It's about, `Will we remain in the euro with a lower public
                 debt or will we lose everything that we will achieve?' \"

                 At a time when Mr. Papandreou is under intense political and
                 social pressure, including from members of his own Socialist
                 Party, the move was seen as the last card he could play.

                 It was still unclear how the referendum question would be
                 posed, but Mr. Papandreou said the vote would be on whether
                 Greeks supported the debt deal and the program of austerity
                 measures in exchange for foreign aid.

                 The stakes are extremely high. A no vote would not only be
                 likely to bring down the Greek government, it could break
                 the deal between Greece and its so-called troika of foreign
                 lenders - the European Union, European Central Bank and
                 International Monetary Fund - which have demanded structural
                 changes and austerity measures in exchange for aid.

                 Without the aid, Greece would not be able to meet its
                 expenses and would default on its debt, and send shockwaves
                 through the euro zone and the world economy.

                 Mr. Papandreou also said that he would seek a parliamentary
                 vote of confidence in his administration, just four months
                 after winning a similar vote before pushing an earlier batch
                 of austerity measures into law. The vote of confidence is
                 expected to be held on Friday evening, and Mr. Papandreou is
                 expected to squeak by with his narrow three-vote majority in
                 Parliament.
                 Government officials said the referendum would probably be
                 held in January, essentially buying the government time
                 while the details of the debt deal are hammered out.

                 Addressing lawmakers on Monday evening, Finance Minister
                 Evangelos Venizelos raised the stakes further by framing the
                 debate as one of Greece staying in the euro zone - the group
                 of 17 European Union countries that use the euro. \"It's for
                 the people to decide to stay in Europe or go back to the
                 drachma,\" he said.

                 Takis Michas, a political analyst and the project director
                 of Forum for Greece, an Athens research institute, said
                 posing the question this way was \"a master stroke on behalf
                 of Papandreou in the sense it is forcing the various parties
                 to take a very responsible position.\"

                 \"If he succeeds in framing the issue as being one of
                 remaining in the euro zone, obviously he is going to get a
                 huge yes,\" Mr. Michas added. \"But it depends on whether he
                 can frame the question in those terms.\"

                 Under the Greek Constitution, the government must propose
                 the language of the referendum, which would need to be
                 approved by Parliament and then by the president.

                 Some analysts said the referendum was an invitation for
                 instability. \"People are very discontented with him
                 personally and toward his economic policy, and in these
                 kinds of circumstances when the debate is very passionate
                 and things are tense, holding a referendum could be risky,\"
                 said Alexis Papahelas, the editor of the center-right daily
                 Kathimerini.

                 \"If the referendum fails, obviously everything will be in
                 disarray,\" he added. \"Probably we will go to elections, but
                 we have a very big chance that the country would go into a
                 disorderly default.\"

                 Last Thursday, after European leaders and the International
                 Monetary Fund had finally reached an accord, Mr. Papandreou
                 had hailed \"a new day for Europe and for Greece.\" But the
                 deal has proved broadly unpopular among Greeks, who do not
                 understand how it will translate into immediate relief.

                 Papandreou Calls on Greeks to Back EU Debt Accord in
                 Referendum
                 October 31, 2011, 9:05 PM EDT

                 http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-31/papandreou-calls-on-greeks-to-back-eu-debt-accord-in-referendum.html

                 Nov. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou
                 said voters will give him support to forge ahead with
                 economic reforms as he pledged a referendum on the European
                 Union's latest accord on the nation's financing.

                 \"For the new agreement, we must go to a referendum for
                 Greeks to decide,\" Papandreou told lawmakers of his ruling
                 socialist Pasok party in statements carried live yesterday
                 from Athens on state-run Vouli TV. \"Democracy is alive and
                 well and Greeks are being called to rise to a national duty
                 beyond the regular electoral processes.\"

                 Papandreou's gambit risks pushing the country into default
                 if rejected by voters, and raises the ante with dissidents
                 inside his own party. Papandreou's popularity has plunged
                 after a raft of austerity measures cut pensions and wages,
                 increased taxes and sparked a wave of social unrest. An
                 opinion poll published Oct. 29 showed most Greeks believe
                 the accord on a new bailout package and a debt writedown is
                 negative.

                 \"Papandreou could lose the referendum, which means that new
                 elections would have to be called,\" Thomas Costerg, European
                 economist at Standard Chartered Bank in London, said in an
                 e-mail. \"Heightened Greek uncertainty could propagate to
                 other fragile euro-area countries, in particular Italy.\"

                 Most of the 1,009 people surveyed on Oct. 27, the day the
                 agreement was announced, said the accord should be put to a
                 referendum, according to the results of the Kapa Research SA
                 poll, published in To Vima newspaper. Forty-six percent said
                 they'd oppose the plan at such a referendum. In the same
                 poll, more than seven in 10 favored Greece remaining in the
                 euro.

                 Confidence Vote

                 Papandreou also told lawmakers he'll seek a vote of
                 confidence in parliament. The referendum will likely be held
                 after details of the EU accord are wound up, Papandreou
                 said. The vote of confidence will begin tomorrow and
                 conclude late on Nov. 4, according to statements yesterday
                 by House Speaker Filipos Petsalnikos.

                 EU leaders carved out a second aid package for Greece at a
                 summit in Brussels lasting into the early hours of Oct. 27,
                 after Papandreou scraped together parliamentary approval for
                 the second round of austerity measures in four months.
                 Greece will receive 130 billion euros ($180 billion) in
                 public funds plus a 50 percent writedown on Greek debt,
                 following a fully taxpayer- funded package of 110 billion
                 euros extended in May 2010.

                 Venizelos's View

                 \"I can no longer look at polls where the majority is against
                 the agreement, the majority is against the program, but a
                 majority is also in favor of staying in the euro,\" Finance
                 Minister Evangelos Venizelos said on Antenna TV after
                 Papandreou announced his decision. A \"no\" vote at the
                 referendum would lead to \"developments\" that the government
                 would assess, Venizelos said.

                 Papandreou, whose term ends in 2013, is seeking renewed
                 support to push through measures including job cuts to turn
                 around an economy that is set to shrink 5.5 percent this
                 year. The program involves new taxes and cuts in spending to
                 plug the EU's second-biggest budget gap.

                 The state budget deficit widened to 19.2 billion euros in
                 the January to end-September period from 16.7 billion euros
                 a year earlier, according to an e-mailed statement from the
                 Athens-based Finance Ministry yesterday.

                 Opposition parties repeated their call for elections.
                 Papandreou's plans are \"reckless\" and put Greece's EU
                 membership at risk, lead opposition New Democracy party
                 spokesman Yiannis Michelakis said.

                 `Dangerous'

                 Papandreou \"has tossed Greece's future in Europe in the air
                 like a coin,\" Michelakis said in an e-mailed statement from
                 ND's Athens offices yesterday. \"He is dangerous and must go.
                 There is a solution: elections now. It's the safest
                 `referendum.'\"

                 Papandreou now has just a three-seat majority in parliament
                 and won approval for his latest austerity package amid
                 protests that left one person dead. The budget measures
                 prompted a near- rebellion in Papandreou's party and
                 violence in the streets.

                 The New Democracy party, led by Antonis Samaras, would win
                 22 percent of the vote in elections, with Papandreou's Pasok
                 party receiving 14.7 percent, and neither getting enough to
                 form a majority in Parliament, according to the Kapa poll.
                 More than 26 percent of voters said they were undecided on
                 who to back. The margin of error is 3.09 percentage points.

                 Separately, the International Swaps and Derivatives
                 Association said that the euro-area proposals for Greek
                 bonds appear to involve \"a voluntary exchange that would not
                 be binding on all holders,\" according to an e-mailed
                 statement.

                 \"As such, it does not appear to be likely that the euro zone
                 proposal will trigger payments under existing CDS
                 contracts,\" the statement said. \"However, whether or not it
                 does so will be decided by the Determinations Committee on
                 the basis of specific facts, if a request is made to them.\"

                 The ISDA statement late yesterday follows a review of
                 whether the proposal would constitute a \"credit event\" for
                 holders of credit-default swaps linked to the securities.

                 --With assistance from Jennifer Ryan in London and Antonis
                 Galanopoulos in Athens. Editors: Digby Lidstone, Craig
                 Stirling, Kevin Costelloe

                 To contact the reporters responsible for this story: Maria
                 Petrakis in Athens at mpetrakis@bloomberg.net; Natalie Weeks
                 in Athens at nweeks2@bloomberg.net; Marcus Bensasson in
                 Athens at mbensasson@bloomberg.net

                 To contact the editor responsible for this story: Tim
                 Quinson at tquinson@bloomberg.net

                 Greek PM calls referendum on new EU aid deal
                 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/31/us-greece-referendum-idUSTRE79U5PQ20111031
                 By Dina Kyriakidou and Harry Papachristou

                 ATHENS | Mon Oct 31, 2011 6:50pm EDT

                 (Reuters) - Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou called an
                 unexpected referendum on Monday on the EU bailout deal for
                 his debt-ridden country, a move that could necessitate a
                 snap election if a public angry with swinging austerity
                 measures rejects the deal.

                 Pressured by his own lawmakers to share the heavy political
                 burden of belt-tightening with other parties, Papandreou
                 said he needed wider political support for the fiscal
                 measures and structural reforms required by international
                 lenders.

                 \"We trust citizens, we believe in their judgment, we believe
                 in their decision,\" he told ruling Socialist party deputies.
                 \"In a few weeks the (EU) agreement will be a new loan
                 contract... we must spell out if we are accepting it or if
                 we are rejecting it.\"

                 Analysts said holding a referendum was a baffling decision,
                 given that the latest survey showed a majority of Greeks
                 taking a negative view of the bailout deal.

                 Opposition parties reacted angrily, accusing Papandreou of
                 looking for a way out for his embattled party by dragging
                 Greece, which has seen violent clashes between protesters
                 and riot police, through a lengthy period of political
                 instability.

                 The euro extended losses against the dollar after the
                 announcement, tumbling more than 2 percent to a session low.

                 Papandreou, grappling with Greece's worst financial crisis
                 in 40 years, had discussed holding a referendum but many
                 people were shocked at the prospect of weary, disgruntled
                 citizens being asked to decide whether to accept or reject
                 the bailout.

                 \"Mr. Papandreou is dangerous, he tosses Greece's EU
                 membership like a coin in the air,\" said conservative
                 opposition New Democracy party spokesman Yannis Michelakis.
                 \"He cannot govern and instead of withdrawing honorably, he
                 dynamites everything.\"

                 New Democracy leader Antonis Samaras will visit President
                 Karolos Papoulias on Tuesday to discuss developments and
                 push for snap elections, party officials said.

                 Weekend polls showed most Greeks took a negative view of the
                 decision by euro zone leaders last week to hand
                 cashed-strapped Athens a second, 130-billion-euro bailout
                 and a 50-percent write-down on its enormous debt to make it
                 sustainable.

                 \"I never expected Papandreou to take such a dangerous and
                 frivolous decision,\" said Dora Bakoyanni, former foreign
                 minister and leader of the small center-right Democratic
                 Alliance party. \"Tomorrow all the international media will
                 say that Greece itself is putting the EU deal at risk.\"

                 Germany issued a statement saying the EU was working hard to
                 put the second Greek aid package in place by the end of the
                 year and had no comment on the referendum. EU leaders
                 hammered out the deal last week, fearing the Greek debt
                 crisis would speed to other euro zone countries and shake
                 global markets.

                 \"If there was to be a referendum, we may reasonably conclude
                 that they may not accept the austerity measures. We may
                 conclude that it will bring the pack of cards tumbling
                 down,\" said Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist at BGC
                 Partners in London.

                 Papandreou also said he would ask for a vote of confidence
                 to secure support for his policy for the rest of his
                 four-year term, which expires in 2013.

                 Analysts said he was likely to win that, despite dissent
                 among his parliamentary team. He was forced to expel a
                 senior party member for voting against part of his latest
                 austerity package and others warned him it was the last time
                 they would vote for measures they did not believe in.

                 Parliament officials said the confidence debate would begin
                 on Wednesday, with a vote on Thursday or Friday.

                 LEGALITY QUESTIONED

                 Papandreou said the referendum would ask Greeks whether or
                 not they agreed to the deal and would take place in a few
                 weeks. Finance Minister Evangelos Venizelos told Greek TV it
                 would probably be held early next year.

                 But parliamentarians questioned its legality under the
                 constitution, which does not allow referendums on economic
                 issues, only on matters of great national importance.

                 The last time Greeks held a referendum was in December 1974,
                 when they voted to abolish the monarchy shortly after the
                 collapse of a military dictatorship.

                 \"It's debatable whether the constitution allows such a
                 referendum,\" said Fotis Kouvelis, leader of the small
                 Democratic Left party. \"The country must go to early
                 elections. Given the situation, it's the most honorable
                 solution.\"

                 For a referendum result to be binding, there must be a
                 minimum 40 percent turnout on issues of \"crucial national
                 importance\" and 50 percent on a law that has already been
                 voted on in parliament and \"regulates a serious social
                 issue,\" according to legislation enacted earlier this year.
                 It was not clear which option the government would favor.

                 \"If the referendum answer is no, Papandreou has to resign,\"
                 said Costas Panagopoulos, an analyst at polling firm Alco.

                 \"In the meantime what will happen with the decisions the EU
                 took last week? I cannot understand what the prime minister
                 wants to do. It could be the only way he has to leave the
                 government, to share responsibility.\"

                 Nearly 60 percent of Greeks view Thursday's EU summit
                 agreement on the new bailout package as negative or probably
                 negative, a survey showed on Saturday.

                 Several lawmakers have defected from Papandreou's Socialist
                 party over the packages of austerity measures enacted to
                 qualify for bailout payments under last year's aid
                 agreement, and the party trails in opinion polls.

                 New Democracy is rising fast in opinion polls, but no party
                 would win outright if polls were held now, leading to
                 coalition governments or repeated elections.

                 \"The prime minister is obviously stuck in a dead end and he
                 is leading the country down a very dangerous slope,\" said
                 far right LAOS party MP Makis Voridis.

                 Greek Vote Threatens Bailout
                 Premier Calls for Surprise Referendum Days After European
                 Leaders OK Aid Deal

                     EUROPE NEWS
                     NOVEMBER 1, 2011
                  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204394804577010091283798750.html
                 By ALKMAN GRANITSAS, MARCUS WALKER and COSTAS PARIS

                 ATHENS-Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou stunned Europe
                 by announcing a referendum on his country's latest bailout-a
                 high-stakes gamble that could undermine the international
                 effort to preserve the euro.

                 A \"yes\" vote in the referendum could deflate the massive
                 street protests and strikes that threaten to paralyze Greece
                 as it tries to enact a brutal austerity program to earn
                 rescue loans from the euro zone and the International
                 Monetary Fund.

                 A \"no\" vote, however, could bring down the government and
                 cut off international funding for Greece, leaving the
                 country facing a financial meltdown. The government expects
                 to hold the referendum in January.

                 Some Greek government officials believe a defeat in the
                 referendum could propel their country out of the euro zone.
                 Many European policy makers fear that a messy Greek default
                 could spark a financial-market panic that would particularly
                 affect Italy, a major European economy that's already
                 struggling to retain investors' trust.

                 Mr. Papandreou's dramatic announcement, which he delivered
                 late Monday in a speech to lawmakers, renders the outcome of
                 Europe's debt crisis more uncertain than ever. It comes less
                 than a week after euro-zone leaders agreed on a
                 \"comprehensive package\" of measures to keep Greece afloat,
                 reassure financial markets and stabilize the region. That
                 agreement was supposed to ensure that Athens avoids a
                 unilateral debt default, restructures its debts in
                 cooperation with bondholders, and cuts its budget deficit
                 further in return for a EUR130 billion ($180 billion)
                 bailout.

                 With the fate of the deal in the lap of Greek voters, the
                 euro crisis is likely to dominate this week's summit of the
                 Group of 20 leading global economies in Cannes, France. For
                 months, the U.S. government has been pressing Europe to
                 resolve the two-year-old Greek debt crisis, which is
                 undermining investor confidence in ever-growing swaths of
                 the euro currency zone. The lingering uncertainty, in turn,
                 has hurt confidence in global financial markets, and the
                 looming referendum will only accentuate that.

                 The announcement in Athens roiled financial markets late
                 Monday, pushing the euro down 2.1% against the dollar to
                 $1.3859, the European currency's biggest one-day slide in
                 six months. Already-weak U.S. stocks sank further into the
                 red. The Dow Jones Industrial Average suffered its worst
                 daily decline in a month, falling 276.10 points, or 2.26%,
                 to 11955.01. \"Maybe the [Greek bailout] deal is in
                 jeopardy,\" said Stephen Leuer, a floor trader at X-FA
                 trading. \"Any sort of doubt is definitely going to set us
                 back,\" he said, adding that U.S. markets are \"very
                 sensitive\" to news from Europe at present.

                 Greece's embattled leader decided to go for a referendum as
                 a way of shoring up support for the drastic government
                 spending cuts and tax hikes that his country's parlous
                 finances have forced him to enact, Greek officials say.

                 Mr. Papandreou, who inherited a fiscal mess after winning
                 election in 2009 as head of a Socialist administration, has
                 had to slash Greeks' cherished welfare entitlements to
                 please the country's international creditors, in the face of
                 opposition from labor unions and parts of his own party.

                 Prime Minister George Papandreou announces a referendum on a
                 debt deal.

                 The mild-mannered, U.S.-born premier floated the idea of a
                 referendum earlier this year as public hostility to
                 austerity mounted, but he backed off amid fears that such a
                 move would be destabilizing for Greece and for Europe.

                 In recent weeks, however, public and parliamentary patience
                 with austerity and an ever-deepening recession has stretched
                 thin, weakening Mr. Papandreou's authority.

                 The government needs a stronger democratic mandate to
                 implement last week's bailout agreement with Europe and the
                 IMF, Mr. Papandreou told a stunned audience of Socialist
                 lawmakers on Monday. For that, he said, \"we need to go to a
                 referendum.\"

                 The question put to voters will be simple, he said: \"Do we
                 want to adopt the new agreement? Or do we want to reject
                 it?\" The popular verdict would be binding, he added. \"If the
                 Greek people do not want it to be implemented, very simply
                 it won't be implemented.\"

                 What would happen next is anything but clear. A binding
                 voter rejection of Europe's terms for a bailout would leave
                 euro-zone leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel
                 and French President Nicolas Sarkozy with a bitter choice.
                 Either they let Greece default on its EUR355 billion of
                 public debt, risking panic throughout Europe's
                 government-bond markets and banking sectors; or they cave in
                 and offer Greece more generous bailout terms.

                 Relaxing Greece's bailout terms would anger voters in
                 Germany and other countries who are already resentful of
                 having to subsidize Greece, a country that is widely viewed
                 in Europe as having lived beyond its means for years. It
                 could also prompt other recipients of rescue loans-Ireland
                 and Portugal-to demand similarly generous treatment. That,
                 in turn, would test both the political tolerance and the
                 financial wherewithal of Europe's core economies to support
                 weaker euro nations.

                 A Greek referendum on its bailout, for the first time in the
                 two-year crisis, would put what many Greeks view as
                 draconian spending cuts demanded by Athens' international
                 creditors to a democratic test. The result of the vote could
                 reverberate around the euro zone, putting pressure on
                 governments in other European countries that are enacting
                 austerity measures to stem the debt crisis to ask for their
                 voters' consent.

                 Opinion polls suggest Mr. Papandreou faces a struggle to
                 convince an increasingly angry electorate. A survey
                 published at the weekend showed that 58.9% of Greeks oppose
                 last week's European deal; there are fears that the planned
                 debt restructuring will bring further pain while yielding
                 few benefits for the country.

                 The poll, the first since last week's bailout deal was
                 struck, showed that some 54.2% of Greeks thought a national
                 referendum should be called to approve the new aid deal,
                 while only 40% thought Parliament should decide.

                 However, Mr. Papandreou is betting that voters may approve
                 the bailout package if they are forced to confront the
                 alternative of national bankruptcy and a possible exit from
                 the euro.

                 Some Greek officials say the referendum question could be
                 worded in such a way that voters see it as a matter of
                 Greece's continued euro membership. The recent opinion poll
                 showed 72.5% of Greeks want to stay in the euro zone. \"The
                 actual meaning of the referendum is a choice between the
                 euro and the drachma,\" the traditional Greek currency, a
                 senior Socialist official said.

                 In a bid to shore up flagging support within his own party,
                 Mr. Papandreou also called for a fresh vote of confidence in
                 his government-just months after narrowly winning such a
                 vote in June.

                 On 10/31/11 2:22 PM, Michael Wilson wrote:

                   vote of confidence and the referendum are two separate
                   things, not attached. He has already employed the vote of
                   confidence before and presumably could get it again. This
                   is why it was so important last week or so when the MP
                   resigned both party and seat so PASOK could put someone in
                   who was indebted to the party

                   The referendum is what im not sure he could win. Also will
                   be interesting to see which comes first

                   On 10/31/11 2:15 PM, Kristen Cooper wrote:

                     Well, if it has a confidence vote attached to it and
                     fails, Papandreou wouldn't necessarily be the one the EU
                     is negotiating with. There are a couple different
                     aspects here, but I don't think this was a move to
                     negotiate a better deal with the EU. This is as about as
                     good as deal as they could possibly hope for.

                     I think with a referendum, he's essentially calling the
                     public out - \"Look, this is the deal I got. Take it or
                     leave it.\" If its approved, then you undermine the
                     legitimacy of the people striking and protesting over
                     the deal. If if it fails - along with an attached
                     confidence vote - fails, then that means somebody else
                     has to come up with a concrete alternative to the plan -
                     which no one has credibly come forth with yet.

                     On 10/31/11 2:45 PM, Michael Wilson wrote:

                       Remember that in September there were reports
                       (subsequently denied) that they would hold a
                       referendum on the Euro. This is just a referendum on
                       the new EU aid deal, but I imagine will serve a
                       similar political role

                       If it gets approved he has legitimacy. If it doesnt he
                       can better negotiate with EU I guess. Scary to think
                       what happens if its not approved...

                       Greece says not considering referendum on euro

                        http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/greece-referendum-idUSA8E7JO01720110920

                       ATHENS, Sept 20 | Tue Sep 20, 2011 3:41am EDT

                       (Reuters) - Greece denied a report on Tuesday that it
                       was considering holding a referendum on the country's
                       membership in the euro zone.

                       Kathimerini daily wrote on Tuesday, citing unnamed
                       sources, that Prime Minister George Papandreou was
                       considering calling for a referendum on whether Greece
                       should continue to tackle its debt crisis within the
                       euro zone or by exiting the single currency.

                       The government has long said it was planning a
                       referendum on political reforms but has repeatedly
                       denied that it would concern the country's euro
                       membership.

                       Asked if the referendum would be about staying in the
                       euro zone, deputy government spokesman Angelos Tolkas
                       said: \"No. We haven't discussed such an issue,
                       definitely not.\"

                       He said the government had put to parliament on Monday
                       a bill aimed at allowing the country to hold referenda
                       but without specifying any issue.

                       \"Yesterday we tabled a bill about referenda ... but we
                       have not discussed anything more than holding a
                       referendum.\" (Reporting by Angeliki Koutantou; writing
                       by Ingrid Melander; editing by Michael Winfrey)

                       Greece may hold referendum on euro zone membership:
                       report

                          
                       http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/us-greece-referendum-idUSTRE78J07W20110920
                       Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:57pm EDT

                       (Reuters) - Greece may hold a voter referendum on euro
                       zone membership as a way to strengthen the
                       government's hand in dealing with the debt crisis
                       within the euro zone or by exiting the single
                       currency, the Kathimerini English language newspaper
                       reported on its website on Tuesday.

                       Prime Minister George Papandreou is considering
                       calling for the referendum as pressure has mounted
                       from all sides with Greece's foreign creditors pushing
                       for quicker budget cuts, while large-scale citizen
                       street protests against austerity are held almost
                       daily, the newspaper said, citing unnamed sources.

                       A bill to be submitted in parliament, paving the way
                       for a referendum, is to be discussed in the coming
                       days, the newspaper added.

                       For the newspaper website, see: www.ekathimerini.com

                       Papandreou had earlier resisted any referendum, but
                       now thinks such a vote could bring a fresh mandate for
                       his Socialist government to continue with an austerity
                       drive backed by Greece's international lenders, the
                       newspaper said.

                       The cabinet is reportedly split, with several
                       ministers calling for drastic action including early
                       elections at an emergency meeting on Sunday, the
                       newspaper said, while others want to avoid a
                       referendum or new polls.

                       (Writing by Ed Layne in Singapore; Editing by Yoko
                       Nishikawa)

                       On 10/31/11 1:34 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                         Greece to hold referendum on new debt deal

                         (AP) - 10 minutes ago
                         http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKv9sosbqxb_nvPl5iOA50fQfTkQ?docId=630021ce8f5d4b55b858d29d616e23c4
                         ATHENS, Greece (AP) - Greek Prime Minister George
                         Papandreou says his country will hold a referendum
                         on a new European debt deal reached last week.

                         Papandreou gave no date on other details of proposed
                         referendum on the deal that aims to seek 50 percent
                         losses for private holders of Greek bonds and
                         provide the troubled eurozone member with euro100
                         billion ($140 billion) in additional rescue loans.

                         Papandreou, addressing Socialist members of
                         parliament Monday, also said he would seek a vote of
                         confidence in parliament.

                         His Socialist government has seen its majority
                         reduced to just three seats in parliament and its
                         approval ratings plummet amid harsh austerity
                         measures that are likely to send the country into a
                         fourth year of recession in 2012.

                         Papandreou calls for referendum in Greece
                         Mon, Oct 31 2011, 18:18 GMT | FXstreet.com
                         http://www.fxstreet.com/news/forex-news/article.aspx?storyid=5ede6cce-fa68-4d8a-a580-14808203a3ad

                         FXstreet.com (Cordoba) - The Prime Minister of
                         Greece, George Papandreou called for a referendum to
                         ask whether to accept the new bailout or not. He
                         said he will call for a vote of confidence and
                         rejected elections.

                         It was reported also that the PM mentioned that the
                         government may need to nationalize some banks in
                         order to recapitalized them. After a period of time
                         the banks would be privatized.

                         Papandreou Says EU Decisions Will Relieve Greece of
                         Debt Burden
                         October 31, 2011, 1:43 PM EDT
                         http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-31/papandreou-says-eu-decisions-will-relieve-greece-of-debt-burden.html

                         Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Greek Prime Minister George
                         Papandreou said the country had secured a \"historic
                         decision\" at last week's summit of European Union
                         leaders that will allow Greece to \"look to our
                         future\" with less uncertainty.

                         \"The EU summit decisions open up a new era for
                         Europe and a new era for Greece,\" Papandreou said in
                         comments to ruling party lawmakers in Athens
                         televised on state-run Vouli TV today. The decisions
                         taken by EU leaders early on Oct. 27 will reduce
                         Greece's debt by about 100 billion euros, Papandreou
                         said.

                         To contact the reporter on this story: Marcus
                         Bensasson in Athens at mbensasson@bloomberg.net

                         Papandreou Says Greek Elections to be Held in 2013
                         as Scheduled
                         October 31, 2011, 1:55 PM EDT
                         http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-31/papandreou-says-greek-elections-to-be-held-in-2013-as-scheduled.html

                         Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Greek Prime Minister George
                         Papandreou said his government faced a challenge to
                         exploit the window of opportunity provided by the
                         decisions taken last week by European Union leaders
                         on a second financing package for the country.

                         Papandreou said the priority was to \"lock in\" the
                         decisions of the summit. He said elections would be
                         held as scheduled in 2013. He spoke in Athens in
                         comments televised live on state-run Vouli TV.

                         On 10/31/11 1:22 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

                           Greece to call referendum on new EU aid deal

                           http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/31/us-greece-referendum-idUSTRE79U5PQ20111031

                           ATHENS | Mon Oct 31, 2011 2:09pm EDT
                           (Reuters) - The Greek government will hold a
                           referendum on a new EU aid package, calling on
                           voters to say whether they want to adopt it or
                           not, Prime Minister George Papandreou said on
                           Monday.

                           \"We trust citizens, we believe in their judgment,
                           we believe in their decision,\" he told ruling
                           socialist party lawmakers.

                           Nearly 60 percent of Greeks view Thursday's EU
                           summit agreement on a new 130 billion euro bailout
                           package as negative or probably negative, a survey
                           showed on Saturday.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
                  

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
                

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Director of Watch Officer Group
 STRATFOR
 221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
 Austin, TX 78701
 T: +1 512 744 4300 ex 4112
 www.STRATFOR.com
              

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Director of Watch Officer Group
 STRATFOR
 221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
 Austin, TX 78701
 T: +1 512 744 4300 ex 4112
 www.STRATFOR.com
          

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Director of Watch Officer Group
 STRATFOR
 221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
 Austin, TX 78701
 T: +1 512 744 4300 ex 4112
 www.STRATFOR.com
        

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +216 22 73 23 19
 www.STRATFOR.com

 --
 Matthew Powers
 Senior Researcher
 STRATFOR
 221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
 Austin, TX 78701
 T: 512-744-4300 | M: 817-975-1037
 www.STRATFOR.com

 --
 Christoph Helbling
 ADP
 STRATFOR

 --
 Adriano Bosoni - ADP
","2011-11-01 15:49:40",1,"2012-02-29 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/4568398_re-discussion-the-eurozone-s-doozy-step-.html","adriano.bosoni@stratfor.com","","analysts@stratfor.com",""
4966214,"[OS] RUSSIA/GEORGIA - Russia trying to \"enslave\" Georgia,
	president says
","","2011-11-22 18:58:11",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/4966214_-os-russia-georgia-russia-trying-to-enslave-georgia.html","marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com","mailto:os@stratfor.com","os@stratfor.com",""
4984616,"wikileaks mirrored
","   In case the wikileaks.org site goes down again, I've mirrored it here:

    

   https://research.stratfor.com/cablegate.wikileaks.org/

    

    

    

   Kevin Stech

   Research Director | STRATFOR

   kevin.stech@stratfor.com

   +1 (512) 744-4086

    
","2010-11-28 23:07:52",1,"2012-03-01 23:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/4984616_wikileaks-mirrored-.html","kevin.stech@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
5008523,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - GERMANY/AFGHANISTAN - German security company
 in Afghanistan
","   Good work, Hoor.

   On 8/4/11 4:10 PM, Hoor Jangda wrote:

     Kunduz isn't part of phase 1 of the handover so there are foreign forces
     still in the province.

     On Thursday, 8/4/11 3:10 PM, Kristen Cooper wrote:

       Is Kunduz among the initial areas where they are trying to hand over
       security to the Afghan forces?

       On 8/4/11 3:50 PM, Michael Wilson wrote:

         PUBLICATION: Check with Hoor first
         SOURCE: New source, DE1000
         ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor source
         SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Former intelligence analyst in Afghanistan.
         SOURCE  Reliability : (new source not sure yet)
         ITEM CREDIBILITY: (not sure yet)
         DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
         SPECIAL HANDLING:
         SOURCE HANDLER: Hoor

         This is someone that I spoke to post the Kunduz attack (August 2) at
         the German security office. These are the main questions I asked
         after the attack: There is quite a bit here. If you have any
         questions you want asked let me know.

         Questions I asked:
         What do you think will happen with Kunduz? does it appear that the
         security situation will get worse? Any idea what the Taliban
         structure in Kunduz is currently looking like?

         His response :
         Dear Hoor,

         Many thanks for your reply. It's great to discuss analytical
         intricacies with someone at Stratfor, which I've been reading and
         greatly appreciating as a subscriber for some 9 years now.

         The company, LANTdefence, actually belongs to EXOP GmbH, a small
         German security and intelligence firm. The main client base
         consisted of humanitarian organisations active in Afghanistan and
         Pakistan, particularly German ones. I traveled a lot to and within
         Pakistan for a corporate client, building up an intelligence and
         early warning infrastructure for their project sites. I still have a
         number of good contacts in the humanitarian and security environment
         in Afghanistan. Later this year I might actually go back to
         Afghanistan for a few weeks on a consulting assignment.

         Re. the situation in Kunduz: I visited Kunduz several times in 2009
         and 2010, and even back then, the security situation was decidedly
         worse than in Mazar and even Kabul. International aid workers could
         only move around the city with local escort. Whether the escorts
         were armed or not pretty much depended on the approach of the
         respective humanitarian organisation/company: The Germans (GIZ) were
         generally travelling without armed escort, while the UN and actors
         like DAI (contractor of USAID) had different approaches. The main
         character of Kunduz City has long been the fact that it is basically
         surrounded by Taliban or Taliban-friendly insurgents, who have also
         been known to have a permanent if somewhat subtle presence in the
         city. Insurgent influence on the city was always palpable - e.g.
         when I spent a few days there in May 2010 it was a fact of life that
         cell phones didn't work between 6pm and 5am because the Taliban
         forced the providers to switch off networks during the night.
         Western nationals working with aid agencies could generally not be
         present beyond city limits. Even locals working for Western
         organisations were increasingly threatened.

         The current situation in Kunduz has further deteriorated, compared
         to 2010, according to my contacts in Kunduz and Kabul. The German
         Bundeswehr which is based near Kunduz airport has dramatically
         failed in their stabilisation efforts, largely due to not
         understanding the concept of COIN. (I have talked to many German
         officers every time I was in Kunduz, and have researched the German
         COIN approach in my 2008 dissertation at King's College London.)
         This does not bode well for the future security situation in Kunduz.
         US forces are largely dictating the pace and degree of pressure on
         the insurgents, but NATO forces in the area are on the backfoot as
         everyone is well aware that NATO will leave within the next 2-3
         years. Local power brokers (Taliban, arbaki, corrupt police, ANA,
         etc.) are preparing to fight for the power gap that NATO forces will
         leave behind when they will eventually draw back.

         I am not too sure about the insurgent structure in Kunduz at the
         moment - at least I don't have a complete picture. However, I know
         from conversations with local police and foreign intel people there
         that apart from the local Taliban structure, foreign fighters have
         always posed a particular problem in Kunduz. There has always been
         talk about 'the Uzbeks', referring to Islamist militants from
         Uzbekistan who have been known to live in local safehouses in the
         city. Also, Kunduz police chief Aqtash told me in a 90-min meeting
         last year that there is a hotspot village about 20km northwest of
         Kunduz City where according to his estimates around 100 Haqqani
         militants or sympathisers are based. Furthermore, recent information
         from German authorities (and Youtube videos) show that there is a
         small but seemingly constant stream of jihadi fighters with German
         passports who join the insurgents in the Kunduz area. From what I
         know these are German militants who first take the usual route
         Turkey-Zahedan (Iran)-Pakistani tribal areas and are then moved on
         to Northern Afghanistan via Kunar/Nuristan and Badakhshan.

         Lastly, a few words on the 02 Aug attack in Kunduz. I agree with you
         in considering this a particularly interesting event. While it is
         not unheard of that local guards employed by international orgs get
         injured or killed in attacks, direct attacks on Western security
         companies are quite rare in Afghanistan according to my reading. The
         January 2011 attack on the 'Finest' supermarket in Kabul was such an
         attack, but in that case an individual XE employee had been tracked
         and assaulted while shopping at the supermarket. The attack now on
         LANTdefence (and their local partner Kabora) is therefore a
         significant thing in my view. Such a suicide attack after just one
         year of presence in Kunduz is certainly a setback - other Western
         security companies have operated in Kunduz for years without getting
         hit. The fact that the Taliban have hightlighted the attack in their
         claim of responsibility as being against a 'German intelligence
         centre' leaves no doubt that it was LANTdefence/EXOP that was the
         intended target. The problem for LANTdefence/EXOP were always the,
         let's say, close ties to German intelligence that did certainly not
         go unnoticed among local house staff, local guards and drivers etc.
         Plenty of opportunities for the Taliban to gather target intel, if
         the right sort of pressure is put on the families of local staff,
         for example. On the other side, almost all foreign security
         companies are rumoured to have intelligence ties, so the Taliban
         could very well have only done some guess-work.

         The attack was apparently meant to be a strong warning against the
         company, but was not actually designed to annihilate it completely.
         (The main LANTdefence office is in Kabul anyway.) I know the
         compound in Kunduz pretty well, and any attacker could have expected
         to run into resistance from anything between 6 and 10 armed guards
         and their German ex-army supervisors. Still, only two insurgent
         gunmen stormed the house after the initial blast that opened the
         main gate. They were not killed by responding police, but detonated
         their explosives belts themselves after 1-2 hours of firefight.

         The attack will certainly have implications for the security of
         foreign aid workers, especially Germans in the area and probably
         country-wide. As I said before, LANTdefence, partnering with Kabora,
         is responsible for all GIZ physical security all over Afghanistan.
         Now that LANTdefence themselves have become the target of an attack
         and have been singled out by Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid as
         'German intelligence', the company will be forced to drastically
         step up their own security measures, which leaves less bandwidth for
         protecting their clients. Also, if for example the Kabul HQ of the
         company would be attacked, the neighbouring GIZ building on one
         side, and the other neighbours, the French NGO ACF, would be
         severely affected as well. It is surely a problem when a security
         provider becomes a security risk themselves.

         Anyway - I could go on forever but have to cut short now. I hope my
         info is useful for you to even better understand the local context.
         As I said in my initial message, if you plan to incorporate some of
         the more sensitive info into your analyses, such as the background
         on LANTdefence/EXOP, that's fine, but please do not hint at whom you
         have it from. If you have questions on the above or on anything
         else, don't hesitate to get back in touch.

         Thanks and all best,

 --
 Hoor Jangda
 Tactical Analyst
 Mobile: 281 639 1225
 Email: hoor.jangda@stratfor.com
 STRATFOR, Austin

 --
 Michael Wilson
 Director of Watch Officer Group, STRATFOR
 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112
 michael.wilson@stratfor.com


 --
 Hoor Jangda
 Tactical Analyst
 Mobile: 281 639 1225
 Email: hoor.jangda@stratfor.com
 STRATFOR, Austin
","2011-08-04 22:20:06",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5008523_re-alpha-insight-germany-afghanistan-german-security-company.html","bokhari@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5034591,"[alpha] INSIGHT - AUSTRALIA/US - Issues Obama will address in OZ
 visit - CN65
","   **Source won't tell me who his source says but does say that he is in a
   very high govt position

   SOURCE: CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes, see special handling
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: A/B 
   SPECIAL HANDLING: No attribution with any publication.  Please see me
   first if we use.
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

       
     Interesting question.

     Of course it is the 60th anniversary of the ANZUS. Defence issues could
     include:

     (as you said) basing of pre-delpoyed equiment in SBTA to get over issues
     to do with AQIS etc. It would include pre-positioning U.S. equipment in
     Australia,increasing access to test ranges bases and conducting more
     joint exercises and training. The US want increased military access and
     cooperation that will allow the U.S. to broaden its posture in the
     region. The shared base idea is part of U.S. efforts to diversify its
     Asian military footprint in a politically agreeable way.

      
     Afghanistan will also obviously be also a major topic
      
     Cyber-warfare is bound to be part of their agreement. This would be the
     first time that cyber-security appears in a bilateral US defence
     treaty.  I know that the Pentagon aims to discuss plans for bilateral
     offensiveoperations in the digital arena.

     The Defence Trade Cooperation Treaty,

     JSF

     Missile Defence

     Enhanced engagement of the US in the Asia-Pacific as a hedge against
     China.

     Space cooperation 

      Just some thoughts off the top of the head.

      
","2011-10-10 13:27:04",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5034591_-alpha-insight-australia-us-issues-obama-will-address-in-oz.html","ben.preisler@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5034740,"[alpha] INSIGHT - PNG/AUSTRALIA - O'Neill in Oz - CN65
","   In response to this question:  PNG PM O'neill is coming to Oz next week.
   Any idea what will be discussed? Any insight on the latest details on
   PNG-OZ?

   SOURCE: CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

   As regards O'Neill, he'll be interested in just one thing - money.  He
   will be wanting increased aid from Australia, and untied aid, i.e. direct
   budgetary support as opposed to aid tied to particular projects and
   administered by Australia.
   Gillard will be keen to get their feet on the sticky paper regarding
   offshore processing of asylum seekers on Manus Island, since the High
   Court struck down offshore processing in Malaysia.
","2011-10-10 01:07:45",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5034740_-alpha-insight-png-australia-o-neill-in-oz-cn65-.html","clint.richards@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5037583,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - PERU/ENERGY - Thoughts on Camisea
","   just fyi - i have zero knowledge of the geology of camisea, so i can't
   offer a guess as to whether gazprom can do it

   what i can  say is that gazprom doens't pay for investments elsewhere - it
   must be paid to do the work

   the one exception is partnership with ENI which are....squirrelly

   On 7/15/11 8:36 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

     who is the source handler for this?   the alleged Russian bid to
     displace Pluspetrol and Hunt is definitely worth digging into given the
     client interest in Camisea. Lauren, is this something about which you'd
     be able to ask around?

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Benjamin Preisler\" <ben.preisler@stratfor.com>
     To: alpha@stratfor.com
     Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 8:30:56 AM
     Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - PERU/ENERGY - Thoughts on Camisea

     PUBLICATION: Yes if desired
     SOURCE: PE 502
     ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor Source in Peru
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: consultant following domestic unrest, energy and
     security
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY :  B- (anit-Humala)
     ITEM CREDIBILITY:  3-4
     DISTRO: Alpha
     SPECIAL HANDLING: n/a

     Source is pretty reliable for the first bit of information.  As for the
     second bit, I am less certain of his reliability.  Alexis Humala is
     Ollanta's brother and married to a Russian woman.  We do know that
     Alexis's trip, Humala's trip to DC  and the Russian publication of
     Alexis's visit did line up chronologically as stated in the insight.

     The consortium Camisea is very worried and asked for a meeting with me. 
     I had lunch with a manager from Camisea and offered them a wider range
     of services and coverage.  Telling them there is little risk under
     Humala would be a lie. 

     Alexis Humala's visit to Russia is a growing scandal. He went to
     negotiate matters related to fishing, gas and nuclear energy with a
     letter signed by Ollanta and Nadine.  They are now denying this, which
     could become something irrelevant in something very suspicious.  The
     Russians made the visit public due to Humala's meeting with Obama.  The
     Russians are very interested  in replacing Pluspetrol and Hunt oil. 
     They are already coming through the false/back door.  This is going to
     generate a reaction from the US Govt.

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19
","2011-07-15 16:17:35",1,"2012-03-02 13:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5037583_re-alpha-insight-peru-energy-thoughts-on-camisea-.html","zeihan@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5038287,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5038287_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5041325,"Re: Wikileaks exposes SA spy boss
","   oops, probably should not have said her name...

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Mark Schroeder <mark.schroeder@stratfor.com>
   To: Nate Taylor <nhtaylor1998@yahoo.com>
   Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 9:55:39 AM
   Subject: Wikileaks exposes SA spy boss
   guess who the \"unidentified\" political officer is, and the Oct. 2009
   meeting is about the same time we were all meeting (coincidence?). the
   news24 link to the original cable turns up blank. we're still looking for
   another way to get the original cable.

   Wikileaks exposes SA spy boss
   2011-01-23 09:19
   http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Wikileaks-exposes-SA-spy-boss-20110123

   Johannesburg - An explosive Wikileaks cable claims that spy boss and
   President Jacob Zuma confidante Moe Shaik threatened to expose the
   a**political skeletonsa** of Zumaa**s enemies and reveals that he was
   cultivated by the Americans as a key informant within the Zuma camp.

   The fresh revelations are likely to shake the Zuma administration as they
   involve one of the presidenta**s key allies and the man tasked with
   running the countrya**s secret service. They give new insight into the
   bitter battle which took place between Zumaa**s allies and those aligned
   to former President Thabo Mbeki prior to Mbekia**s ousting.

   The confidential US Embassy diplomatic cable a** titled Zuma advisor
   threatens to expose political skeletons- claims South African Secret
   Service boss Shaik, brother of convicted fraudster and Zuma funder
   Schabir, told the Americans that Zumaa**s legal team would subpoena the
   countrya**s most influential figures if he lost a bid to have corruption
   charges against him a**re-examineda**.

   The cable said he named Mbeki, the then suspended police commissioner
   Jackie Selebi, former director of Public Prosecutions Vusi Pikoli, then
   acting head of public prosecutions Mokotedi Mpshe as well as former 
   Speaker Frene Ginwala as targets.

   Shaik has refused to confirm or deny the claims.

   The cable a** one of 250 000 leaked to Whistleblower website Wikileaks but
   obtained exclusively by Media24 Investigations a** also reveals that the
   US Embassy in Pretoria actively cultivated Shaik as a key source of
   information on Zumaa**s inner circle and the a**motivations and strategies
   of the Zuma campa**.

   Dated September 10 2008, two days before corruption charges against Zuma
   were initially dismissed by Judge Chris Nicholson, the cable was sent to
   the Secretary of State in Washington DC and copied to US consuls in Durban
   and Cape Town, the CIA, the US Defence Intelligence Agency and the White
   House National Security Council.

   It is one of a number of classified cables recording meetings between
   Shaik a** who was controversially appointed head of the South African
   Secret Service (SASS), South Africaa**s foreign intelligence wing, in
   October 2009 - and an unidentified US embassy political officer.

   a**Shaik complained that all these people know Zuma is innocent and that
   he does not understand why they have not come to Zumaa**s defence before
   now,a** the cable noted.

   Shared insights

   The cable noted that a**as usuala** Shaik treated the political officer or
   a**PolOffa** as a**a friend, a child, a confidante, and an adversary all
   in the same conversationa**.

   a**He always shares insights into the motivations and strategies of the
   Zuma camp, but also expects obvious respect and gratitude for it.\"

   a**PolOff does not know if Shaik meets with other diplomats, but presumes
   his contact within the diplomatic circle is limited.\"

   a**The Australian High Commissioner mentioned he had met Shaik once
   before...and Shaik admitted he spoke to the Norwegians but did not say if
   this was on a regular or one-time basis.a**

   The cable notes that Shaik a**used to meet with the French, but cut them
   off after a French diplomat insulted him immediately before the ANC
   conference at Polokwanea**.

   Ousting Mbeki

   The political officer reported that the Irish ambassador had approached
   her to arrange a meeting with Shaik after seeing her and Shaik in a
   restaurant together, a**but Shaik refused, telling PolOff she should guard
   her contacts more closelya**.

   A source familiar with Shaika**s interaction with the US diplomats claimed
   this week that Shaik had been tasked with winning diplomats over to the
   idea of a Zuma presidency.

   An earlier confidential cable, dated May 16 2008 speculated a** after a
   meeting with Shaik a** that the a**Zuma camp may be looking to oust
   Mbekia**.

   In a cable, dated June 4 2009, that focused on President Zumaa**s new
   cabinet, Shaik is said to have described the appointments of various
   presidential advisers, among them Collins Chabane a** now minister in the
   presidency for performance monitoring, Ayanda Dlodlo a** now deputy
   minister of public service and administration, Mandisi Mpahlwa a** now
   envoy to Moscow, Lindiwe Zulu, Zumaa**s international affairs advisor and
   Bonisiwe Makhene as concessions to a**keep them quieta**.

   No comment

   Contacted this week, Shaik said: a**I will neither confirm nor deny that
   we had discussions with the Americans on these matters and I will
   definitely make no comment about the accuracy of those reports. The
   Americans must deal with accuracy.a**

   US embassy spokesperson Elizabeth Kennedy-Trudeau said the embassy would
   not confirm or comment on the contents or veracity of a**stolen
   documentsa**.

   a**The nature of cables in themselves is that these are one persona**s
   interpretation of a meeting, not official US public policy. The
   circumstances, because of the very nature of spot reporting are open to
   interpretation.a**
","2011-01-24 17:06:40",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5041325_re-wikileaks-exposes-sa-spy-boss-.html","nhtaylor1998@yahoo.com","","mark.schroeder@stratfor.com",""
5041709,"Re: Wikileaks exposes SA spy boss
","   very interesting.  Do you think Brooke knew about this??

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Mark Schroeder <mark.schroeder@stratfor.com>
   To: Nate Taylor <nhtaylor1998@yahoo.com>
   Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 9:55:39 AM
   Subject: Wikileaks exposes SA spy boss
   guess who the \"unidentified\" political officer is, and the Oct. 2009
   meeting is about the same time we were all meeting (coincidence?). the
   news24 link to the original cable turns up blank. we're still looking for
   another way to get the original cable.

   Wikileaks exposes SA spy boss
   2011-01-23 09:19
   http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Wikileaks-exposes-SA-spy-boss-20110123

   Johannesburg - An explosive Wikileaks cable claims that spy boss and
   President Jacob Zuma confidante Moe Shaik threatened to expose the
   a**political skeletonsa** of Zumaa**s enemies and reveals that he was
   cultivated by the Americans as a key informant within the Zuma camp.

   The fresh revelations are likely to shake the Zuma administration as they
   involve one of the presidenta**s key allies and the man tasked with
   running the countrya**s secret service. They give new insight into the
   bitter battle which took place between Zumaa**s allies and those aligned
   to former President Thabo Mbeki prior to Mbekia**s ousting.

   The confidential US Embassy diplomatic cable a** titled Zuma advisor
   threatens to expose political skeletons- claims South African Secret
   Service boss Shaik, brother of convicted fraudster and Zuma funder
   Schabir, told the Americans that Zumaa**s legal team would subpoena the
   countrya**s most influential figures if he lost a bid to have corruption
   charges against him a**re-examineda**.

   The cable said he named Mbeki, the then suspended police commissioner
   Jackie Selebi, former director of Public Prosecutions Vusi Pikoli, then
   acting head of public prosecutions Mokotedi Mpshe as well as former 
   Speaker Frene Ginwala as targets.

   Shaik has refused to confirm or deny the claims.

   The cable a** one of 250 000 leaked to Whistleblower website Wikileaks but
   obtained exclusively by Media24 Investigations a** also reveals that the
   US Embassy in Pretoria actively cultivated Shaik as a key source of
   information on Zumaa**s inner circle and the a**motivations and strategies
   of the Zuma campa**.

   Dated September 10 2008, two days before corruption charges against Zuma
   were initially dismissed by Judge Chris Nicholson, the cable was sent to
   the Secretary of State in Washington DC and copied to US consuls in Durban
   and Cape Town, the CIA, the US Defence Intelligence Agency and the White
   House National Security Council.

   It is one of a number of classified cables recording meetings between
   Shaik a** who was controversially appointed head of the South African
   Secret Service (SASS), South Africaa**s foreign intelligence wing, in
   October 2009 - and an unidentified US embassy political officer.

   a**Shaik complained that all these people know Zuma is innocent and that
   he does not understand why they have not come to Zumaa**s defence before
   now,a** the cable noted.

   Shared insights

   The cable noted that a**as usuala** Shaik treated the political officer or
   a**PolOffa** as a**a friend, a child, a confidante, and an adversary all
   in the same conversationa**.

   a**He always shares insights into the motivations and strategies of the
   Zuma camp, but also expects obvious respect and gratitude for it.\"

   a**PolOff does not know if Shaik meets with other diplomats, but presumes
   his contact within the diplomatic circle is limited.\"

   a**The Australian High Commissioner mentioned he had met Shaik once
   before...and Shaik admitted he spoke to the Norwegians but did not say if
   this was on a regular or one-time basis.a**

   The cable notes that Shaik a**used to meet with the French, but cut them
   off after a French diplomat insulted him immediately before the ANC
   conference at Polokwanea**.

   Ousting Mbeki

   The political officer reported that the Irish ambassador had approached
   her to arrange a meeting with Shaik after seeing her and Shaik in a
   restaurant together, a**but Shaik refused, telling PolOff she should guard
   her contacts more closelya**.

   A source familiar with Shaika**s interaction with the US diplomats claimed
   this week that Shaik had been tasked with winning diplomats over to the
   idea of a Zuma presidency.

   An earlier confidential cable, dated May 16 2008 speculated a** after a
   meeting with Shaik a** that the a**Zuma camp may be looking to oust
   Mbekia**.

   In a cable, dated June 4 2009, that focused on President Zumaa**s new
   cabinet, Shaik is said to have described the appointments of various
   presidential advisers, among them Collins Chabane a** now minister in the
   presidency for performance monitoring, Ayanda Dlodlo a** now deputy
   minister of public service and administration, Mandisi Mpahlwa a** now
   envoy to Moscow, Lindiwe Zulu, Zumaa**s international affairs advisor and
   Bonisiwe Makhene as concessions to a**keep them quieta**.

   No comment

   Contacted this week, Shaik said: a**I will neither confirm nor deny that
   we had discussions with the Americans on these matters and I will
   definitely make no comment about the accuracy of those reports. The
   Americans must deal with accuracy.a**

   US embassy spokesperson Elizabeth Kennedy-Trudeau said the embassy would
   not confirm or comment on the contents or veracity of a**stolen
   documentsa**.

   a**The nature of cables in themselves is that these are one persona**s
   interpretation of a meeting, not official US public policy. The
   circumstances, because of the very nature of spot reporting are open to
   interpretation.a**
","2011-01-24 17:06:08",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5041709_re-wikileaks-exposes-sa-spy-boss-.html","nhtaylor1998@yahoo.com","","mark.schroeder@stratfor.com",""
5044727,"Opportunities for Russia and China in Greek Privatization
","    Stratfor logo                                                             
   Opportunities for Russia and China in Greek Privatization                  
                                                                              
    June 9, 2011 | 2000 GMT                                                   
    Opportunities for Russia and China in Greek Privatization                 
    SAKIS MITROLIDIS/AFP/Getty Images                                         
    Shipping containers at the Greek port of Thessaloniki                     
    Summary                                                                   
                                                                              
    Greece's eurozone partners are demanding that Athens accelerate sales of  
    public assets and allow an independent agency, likely to be heavily       
    influenced by Germany, to lead the privatization drive. There is a risk   
    that Greece's ruling PASOK party could rebel against Prime Minister       
    George Papandreou and eurozone austerity measures. But the more           
    significant long-term issue is that Russia and China could use the        
    privatization to snatch up strategic Greek assets.                        
                                                                              
    Analysis                                                                  
                                                                              
    Greece's privatization efforts have become central for the new            
    approximately 65 billion to 70 billion euro ($94 billion to $101          
    billion) bailout package being finalized by eurozone member states and    
    expected to be approved by the June 20 eurozone finance ministers'        
    meeting. As the chief condition of the new bailout plan, Greece's         
    eurozone partners are demanding that Athens speed up its sale of          
    publicly held assets and shift the responsibility of privatization from   
    the government to an independent agency that would, sources tell          
    STRATFOR, have considerable input from foreign governments. In other      
    words, Greece needs to sell about 50 billion euros worth of public        
    assets by 2015 and on terms that satisfy Germany and other eurozone       
    countries, regardless of the preferences of the Greek state, which owns   
    the assets, or the Greek public, which depends on them for employment.    
                                                                              
    Greek privatization is a divisive issue that is threatening Prime         
    Minister George Papandreou's hold over his ruling PASOK party. There is   
    a danger PASOK could revolt against Papandreou and eurozone austerity     
    measures, putting Europe's bailout efforts into question and worsening    
    the sovereign debt crisis in Portugal and Spain. The long-term issue,     
    however, is the effect that such wide-scale privatization will have on    
    strategic Greek assets, such as ports and pipelines, which could find     
    interested investors in Russia and China, giving these powers a backdoor  
    into Europe's transportation and energy infrastructure.                   
                                                                              
     Pain of Privatization                                                    
                                                                              
    The new eurozone bailout plan has caused a political crisis in Greece.    
    The planned privatization of state enterprises means further layoffs of   
    public sector workers, and the Greek unemployment rate is already at      
    16.2 percent, more than 3 percent higher than a year ago. Employees of    
    Greek power utility PPC, telecommunication company OTE, and water         
    utilities EYDAP and EYATH have called a 24-hour strike for June 9 to      
    protest the privatization efforts, while the main private and public      
    sector unions, GSEE and ADEDY, will organize a general strike in the      
    country June 15.                                                          
                                                                              
    Privatization, under most conditions, is painful. Inefficiencies built    
    into public companies due to political logic - such as redundant          
    employment, subsidized pricing of goods and services, and wage inflation  
    - are unraveled, to the consternation of a large segment of the           
    population. Furthermore, management positions in publicly held utilities  
    and businesses are often lucrative posts, which political leaders use to  
    reward party loyalists, or are often directly funded from the revenue of  
    the public companies. Thus, the workers facing unemployment and the       
    citizens protesting higher prices for goods and services are not alone    
    in resisting privatization; political elites, who are left without        
    important sources of economic revenue and patronage, also oppose it.      
    This is why, historically, successful and thorough privatization drives   
    require a political outsider in the country to take control and use       
    privatization to evict established and entrenched elites.                 
                                                                              
    Papandreou and PASOK are not at all political outsiders. Although it was  
    out of power for five years before defeating the center-right Nea         
    Dimokratia in 2009, PASOK had led the country for 20 years beginning in   
    1974. Therefore, the greatest danger in terms of opposition to            
    privatization is not from the mounting protests and strikes on the        
    streets of Athens and other Greek cities, which are largely apolitical    
    and offer no real alternative to the ruling party, but from Papandreou's  
    own party.                                                                
                                                                              
    The events of the next few weeks will be crucial for Papandreou's         
    ability to retain control of his party. Because PASOK's popularity has    
    declined significantly, early elections would not benefit its members.    
    However, Papandreou may be able to use the prospect of being voted out    
    of office to scare dissenting members of parliament into supporting the   
    new austerity measures. This depends on a number of factors, including    
    that street protests do not become violent or get out of control, which   
    is not likely.                                                            
                                                                              
    Opportunities for Russia and China in Greek Privatization                 
    (click here to enlarge image)                                             
                                                                              
     Opportunities in Privatization                                           
                                                                              
    A painful privatization drive for Greece, however, presents               
    opportunities for others to gain assets at potentially below market       
    value. German companies are interested in a number of Greek assets,       
    which is certain to frustrate the Greeks, who see the forced              
    privatization drive as a loss of sovereignty and a plot by Berlin to      
    cheaply acquire control of potentially lucrative companies. On June 6,    
    as the new bailout agreement was being negotiated, Germany's Deutsche     
    Telekom acquired a 10 percent stake in Hellenic Telecommunications (OTE)  
    for around 400 million euros, giving the German company a 40 percent      
    stake plus one share in OTE. Athens is looking to sell another 6 percent  
    of OTE to Deutsche Telekom, but the German telecommunication company has  
    said it would invest further only if given full control over OTE's labor  
    policies, which will enable significant layoffs - another example of how  
    privatization can lead to social unrest.                                  
                                                                              
    Russian and Chinese companies also are looking to use Greek               
    privatization for geopolitical gain. For China, Greece is an interesting  
    strategic entry point into emerging markets in Central and Eastern        
    Europe. China would use the Greek ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki to    
    bring its goods to the Balkans, former Soviet countries like Ukraine and  
    Belarus, and Central European EU states like Hungary, Slovakia and        
    Poland. Beijing's logic is that it could expand its trade in Central and  
    Eastern European countries where, considering the region's generally      
    lower income compared to Western Europe, the price point for Chinese      
    exports would be highly competitive. China Ocean Shipping Co. (COSCO)     
    made an investment in Piraeus in June 2010, leasing two container         
    terminals for 35 years at a price of around $5 billion. COSCO's interest  
    also was piqued when the Greek government announced plans to privatize    
    its entire 75 percent stake in the Piraeus port authority, and the        
    Chinese company wants to expand its investment both there and in          
    Thessaloniki.                                                             
                                                                              
    Russia is interested in using Greece to block a key European alternative  
    route for natural gas supplies. The European Union, which currently gets  
    around a quarter of its natural gas from Russia, is looking for           
    alternatives to Russian-dominated natural gas transportation pipelines.   
    At the forefront of the union's plans is the \"southern gas corridor,\"     
    which is essentially an amalgamation of several different projects that   
    would bring Azerbaijani and potentially Central Asian or Middle Eastern   
    natural gas into Europe via Turkey. Greece is an important component of   
    this plan since it rests on one route by which natural gas piped through  
    Turkey would enter the European Union - the other option would be to run  
    north through Bulgaria and Romania. From Greece, any proposed natural     
    gas pipelines would have to make the short jump across the Strait of      
    Otranto to Italy.                                                         
                                                                              
    Opportunities for Russia and China in Greek Privatization                 
                                                                              
    There currently are a number of proposed pipeline projects that would     
    constitute the EU southern gas corridor, of which three are central. The  
    Nabucco pipeline is supposed to take the northern route from Turkey to    
    Austria via the Balkan EU member states. Two other pipelines would take   
    the southerly route from Turkey into Greece - the proposed                
    Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) and the Interconnection                     
    Turkey-Greece-Italy (ITGI), of which the planned Poseidon offshore        
    pipeline is the underwater part from Greece to Italy.                     
                                                                              
    The Greek government is directly involved in the ITGI project through     
    its ownership of the Greek public natural gas company DEPA, which is      
    collaborating with privately held Italian natural gas company Edison.     
    The key for Russia, specifically natural gas giant Gazprom, lies in this  
    particular southern corridor project. The proposed privatization of DEPA  
    is therefore an interesting opportunity for the Kremlin. Gazprom has had  
    its eyes on ITGI for years, negotiating with DEPA in 2010 to potentially  
    gain an ownership stake in the project. The deal seems to have fallen     
    through, with Gazprom now concentrating on the Greek plan to privatize    
    DEPA - as much as 32 percent may be up for sale. This would give Moscow   
    considerable influence when decisions are made about whose natural gas    
    ITGI carries, turning ITGI from an alternative to Russian natural gas to  
    an enabler of continued Gazprom dominance of Europe's natural gas         
    market.                                                                   
                                                                              
    The key question is whether Greece's eurozone neighbors will try to       
    prevent China and Russia from gaining access to these geopolitically      
    strategic assets. It is assumed that the new privatization agency,        
    independent from Athens, would be heavily influenced by Germany since     
    Berlin is contributing the most cash for the Greek bailouts. Still, it    
    is unlikely that Berlin would look to ensure that Athens' strategic       
    assets are purchased by fellow eurozone member states and not by Russia   
    and China. Germany, an exporter of high-end, capital-intensive goods,     
    does not consider China's low-cost goods export competition, which means  
    there is no reason for Berlin to prevent Beijing's access to Eastern and  
    Central European markets. Second, Germany has a budding political         
    relationship with Russia, including a solid relationship between          
    Germany's E.ON Ruhrgas and Gazprom. It therefore is unlikely that Berlin  
    will do much to block Gazprom's designs in Greece either. Considering     
    that Germany is expected to have the greatest influence in decisions      
    made by the new privatization agency - and that Berlin's interest is      
    ultimately to get Athens to raise as much cash as possible - Berlin is    
    not likely to stand in the way of Russia and China in Greece.             
                                                                              
    Give us your thoughts                          Read comments on           
    on this report                                 other reports              
                                                                              
    For Publication                                Reader Comments            
                                                                              
    Not For Publication                                                       
    Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us                                
    (c) Copyright 2011 Stratfor. All rights reserved.                         
","2011-06-09 23:25:49",1,"2012-03-02 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5044727_opportunities-for-russia-and-china-in-greek-privatization-.html","noreply@stratfor.com","mailto:stratforaustin@stratfor.com","allstratfor@stratfor.com",""
5048191,"INSIGHT - CHINA/AUSTRALIA/NAMIBIA - Rio - CN65
","   SOURCE: CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator.  Source is 
   well-connected politically, militarily and economically.  He has become a
   private businessman helping foreign companies with M&As
   PUBLICATION: Yes but with no attribution
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2 - speculation, but he knows about the mine and the
   meetings
   DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

   In response to my question on whether Australian intel was involved in the
   Namibian corruption crackdown on Chinese companies:
   There could be one indicator about possible intelligence activity by
   someone goading Namibia into action, and that is the silence on Stern Hu
   by the Leader of the Opposition over the last week.  Has he perhaps had an
   intelligence briefing? But then Namibia would have to be offered something
   valuable in return for their cooperation, which the offeror would be
   capable of delivering.  What could that be and who could deliver it? Maybe
   the US, but why would the US want to go out on a limb for Stern Hu, unless
   it suits them to clip China's wings in the region anyway?
   One possibility - a better one - could be that it is neither China nor the
   US that is behind this.  Maybe this is all Rio's doing.  Rio has a 69%
   interest in the Ro:ssing Uranium mine in Namibia.  The Namibian President
   recently visited this mine on the 20th July.  (See the attached press
   release.)  The press release states, in part:

     The President of the Republic of Namibia, His Excellency
     Hifikepunye Pohamba and the First Lady Penehupifo Pohamba, visited the
     mine on Saturday morning to familiarise himself with the operations of
     the mine given its significance in the Namibian economy. His visit was a
     response to the company's invitation for him to get first hand
     experience of the company's world class operations. 

   The company also announced plans to increase production of the mine on the
   9th July.  Ro:ssing currently produces 8% world's primary uranium oxide.
    Rio is also a substantial donor to Namibia through various charitable
   foundations it runs.  I certainly think the president's visit to the mine
   is no coincidence.
   My suspicion is that Rio is doing this all on their own.  Could it be the
   people implicated in corruption were politically opposed to the President?
    That would make it a perfect deal for Rio.  Roll up Hu Jintao's son, help
   out the President politically, and put pressure on China, as well as
   leverage their donations, and the role of the Ro:ssing mine to Namibia's
   economy. 
","2009-07-25 05:15:57",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5048191_insight-china-australia-namibia-rio-cn65-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
5055578,"[alpha] INSIGHT - PNG - Somare - CN65
","   SOURCE: via CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1/2
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

   The contact is very close to the Somare family.  He said the family itself
   doesn't know who will be the next PM, and that everything in this regard
   is in a state of flux.  The problem in all of these things is that there
   is no party cohesion in any of the parties.  I look at US parties, and I
   see the Whip as being very weak compared to Australian politics, but in
   PNG the Whip is simply non-existent.  Not only do you have a proliferation
   of small parties in PNG, but people are free to move from one party to
   another, and frequently do so.  
   The difficulty Somare's family will have in attempting to dictate the next
   PM is that they come from the East Sepik, so they don't really have a
   naturally large regional voting block.  They are also sorting out amongst
   themselves if any other members of the family are going to enter politics.
    The strongest block lies in the Highlands, but Ben Sabumei can't work out
   what he wants to do in terms of swinging votes.
   The one thing we did agree was that corruption will win the day for the
   foreseeable future.  This means that maybe nobody in the Parliament will
   know who the winner will be until after the vote!
   I know this doesn't advance things much in terms of an answer, but it does
   give you a better understanding of the situation.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-07-01 23:00:09",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5055578_-alpha-insight-png-somare-cn65-.html","reginald.thompson@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5060472,"[alpha] INSIGHT - PNG - Feedback on analysis - CN65
","   SOURCE: CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

   Please see my comments in orange below.
   The real challenge for PNG is that it is too corrupt to develop
   efficiently. The new government won't make this any worse, but won't make
   it any better either.  
   What will happen is some stability, and an end to governmental paralysis.
    Most of the last eight months in public life there have been spent
   preserving the government, not moving the country forward.
   We see this as a good move.  How good a move will only be known once the
   cabinet is unveiled, but we hope for a good Treasurer.  Many of the other
   posts will be filled by people who are, quite frankly, under-qualified for
   the offices they hold.
   The other issue is that the standard of the political class is clearly
   lower than it was fifteen years ago.  The old guys got corrupt and lazy,
   and outdated.  The newer guys have been obsessed with personal wealth, and
   lack the respect for the offices they hold, which the previous generation
   had.  This, at least, was the view presented to me privately on Wednesday
   evening, by one of most senior diplomats.

   On 04/08/2011 12:23, wrote:

     here is what i have so far. the PROCESS by which they ousted Abal is a
     little confusing to me, so i wanted to run this by yall to make sure it
     is correct and accurate.

      

     The Papua New Guinean parliament on Aug. 2?? yes held a no-confidence
     vote against the government of acting Prime Minister Sam Abal, who has
     held the post since his predecessor, Michael Somare, resigned in
     December 2010.  Somare has not resigned, per se, but merely stood aside.
      He had already been mired in a controversy requiring him to meet a
     Leadership Tribunal for failing to make statutory financial returns.
     Abal is replaced by Peter O'Neill, who previously headed the Works
     Ministry and the Treasury.he was elected by a vote of 70 to 24.  I
     understood the vote was 77 to 31, with the Speaker not casting a vote.
      To do this they first had to have a similar vote to suspend standing
     orders to allow the no-confidnce vote to happen.

      

     Somare ruled the country for the better part of 35 years, and (amid
     latest corruption charge and following the reportedly poor health
     condition) he installed Abal, a long term ally to Somare  to ensure his
     continued influence after he formally resigned (I think he always
     prepares for coming back to power, and appointment of Abal would help
     his return). But as Abal leaves office, so does any residual power
     Somare may have maintained. O'Neill  may represents a stark contrast to
     the Somare regime, seen by many as corrupt, and because of his
     Australian and Papua New Guinean heritage, he could take a more
     pro-Australia stance than that of his predecessors (let's focus more
     from OZ's side, something like: OZ will see the opportunity to work with
     the new administration, changing from Somare's administration which took
     a more anti-OZ stance)  Agree with that.  Aus will see O'Neill as more
     cooperative.  Incidentally, he is deeply personally indebted to my
     colleague, Ben. . Moreover, the two figures hail from different tribes
     (the word tribes here is not right; they are from different provinces,
     and different ethnic groups), the dynamics of which will play a
     significant role in domestic politics under the O'Neill administration.

      

     A New Prime Minister

      

     According to a STRATFOR source, a dispute between Abal and Foreign
     Minister Don Polye - I think this guy was ousted already, along with
     resource minister willian duma, and O'Neill was changed from treasurer
     to work minister during reshuffle in May-- both members of the reputedly
     fractious Engan tribe (try \"grouping\" instead, as Enga is a province) --
     rather than concerns of Somare's projecting power through a handpicked
     replacement precipitated the no-confidence vote. Unhappy with the
     dispute, the Papua New Guinean parliament voted to vacate the prime
     minister's post. (Somare has been receiving medical treatment in
     Singapore for the past few months and, according to the Papua New
     Guinean Constitution, the prime minister's position can be vacated if he
     is absent from parliament without leave for more than 90 days. The
     parliament was thus able to proceed with a no-confidence vote, even
     though Somare designated Abal as the acting prime minister.) Notably,
     the parliament was also unhappy with Abal's ousting O'Neill from his
     position as _______ some months earlier.the latest reshuffle took place
     in May, Don Polye and O'Neil were both ousted by Abal, which severed as
     a catalyst among parliament

      

      Parliament was able to vote for a new prime minister, and a number of
     lawmakers secured enough votes for O'Neill to win. According to the
     source, the lawmakers sought more than a simple majority; they wanted
     enough votes to give O'Neill a decisive victory so that the new
     government would be able to move forward with confidence. O'Neill is now
     in the process of forming a Cabinet, which could include former Prime
     Minister Mekere Morauta as treasurer, and the source said O'Neill is
     thought to be capable of bringing stability to his position until formal
     elections take place in 2012. worth to mention the business camp, which
     O'Neill belongs to (he used to be a successful businessman), served a
     big role into the reshuffle.  O'Neill has significant telecommunications
     interests, most particularly in mobile phones.  His father was an
     Australian kiap(local government administrator and magistrate), and his
     mother was from the Southern Highlands.  

      

     Abal's government has challenged -- unsuccessfully -- the legality of
     the move. Arthur Somare, the son of the former prime minister, has said
     he intends to file a new suit, and the Supreme Court will hear a
     separate case filed by Abal. STRATFOR sources say the court will uphold
     the legality of the vote, solidifying O'Neill in his new position.

     not sure what way we want to frame the following up pieces, here is my
     suggestion (feel free to ignore if you already have one)

   the latest upheaval follows internal power struggle for months without the
   country's strongman, and questions were raised over the future of Somare
   and any changes from his decade power.

   One of the priority for O'Neil is to maintain the country's stability.
   Peter O`Neill is a member of Pangia, Lailibu-Pangia. Somare's strong fist
   over the country have successfully helped unify the country, which have
   nearly thousand tribes and languages, so the domestic situation
   post-Somare period remains questionable - Jen, can we have any insight
   over how tribal issue play into current politics? is the current situation
   likely to be calmed down or far from ending?  It will never end.  The
   other thing is that political parties in PNG are merely groupings of
   convenience.  Many MPs change their political party immediately after
   being elected because they get bought by a rival party.

   Also, O'Neil promised to fight against corruption. though he is corrupted
   (from insight), and he has significant business investments in mobile
   phones, among other things, so it is unlikely that his stepping into power
   could represent big change the country's investment environment O'Neill is
   a strong proponent of the PNG LNG project, and other LNG projects, which
   eh sees as vital for the cash to build the country.  PNG LNG is largely
   American and Australian owned, with Exxon Mobil, Santos and Oil Search
   holding the majority of the shares..

   Also, Somare's last term represents significant shift of anti-OZ, peaked
   Moti Affairs, This period (2003-2007) has seen a steadily growing
   influence of China in Pacific nations, taking full advantage of PNG-OZ
   ramification. - our source indicated that O'Neill won't be anymore
   pro-western than anyone else up there, but I guess OZ may see if there
   would be opportunity to shift a strained relation under Somare - see from
   Gillard's remark on the new administration. so we are still wondering if
   OZ wants any change with new government

   Just attaching a bit research did about two years ago regarding China-PNG
   issue (not sure if it will be helpful)

   Michael Somare, 74 years old, is the dominant politicians in PNG since it
   was independent from Australia in 1975, and so far served as PM for four
   terms (reelected in 1982, 2002 and 2007). The PNG election will be held in
   2012, and Somare was talking about retiring for sometimes, but instead
   setting his son Arthur, the minister for state enterprises and acting
   treasurer, as his successor.

    

   Deputy Prime Minister Dr Puka Temu and two senior ministers - Culture
   Minister Charles Abel and Forest Minister Belden Namah, defected to the
   opposition on July 19 and prepared a no-confidence motion to the
   parliament at 14:00 July 20. The move follows a court ruling last week
   that found several parts of PNG's political integrity law were
   unconstitutional - freedom of speech, freedom of movement. As a result
   from the ruling, MPs are free from party restrictions to move around and
   vote in a no-confidence motion against the sitting prime minister.  This
   is dated.

    

   PNG Political Integrity Laws:

   The political integrity laws of Papua New Guinea came into affect for the
   2002 election and the aim was to bring about political stability in a
   country where governments had chopped and changed pretty regularly through
   no confidence votes. So these laws bound members of parliament through
   their parties and if their parties had supported the government to form a
   governing coalition, they were pretty much bound to vote along government
   line.

    

   PNG-China:

   Somare has long been seen as close to Malaysian logging interests and
   accommodating to Chinese entrepreneurs setting up entertainment venues.
   However, in June this year, He banned reporting and discussion of
   environment law charges that could allow a Chinese miner to pump waste out
   to sea.

    

   PNG Nickel Mine Project:

   Chinese financed Ramu nickel mine project in PNG's Madang Province was
   approved by PNG government ten years ago, and the company claims it has
   already spent more than a billion dollars into the project. However, the
   project was opposed by landowners and environmental groups. Last week,
   Supreme Court failed to lift the injunction stopping construction of a
   system to dispose of mining waste in Madang's Basamuk Bay. Somare,
   representing the government's stance, met with local landowners, but
   failed to reach an agreement on the issue.

    
    

   PNG-Australia:

   Somare outraged Australia in 2006, when he ignored an extradition request
   for Solomon Islands attorney general Julian Moti to face child sex
   charges. Moti was then flown to Solomon Islands on a PNG Defense Force
   flight and Australia then cancelled ministerial level talks in Dec. 2006
   and banned senior PNG ministers from entering Australia.

    

   Following Australia's intervention in Solomon in 2003, Australia laid out
   plans for an Enhanced Cooperation Package (ECP) for PNG to send more than
   200 Australian police as well as senior bureaucrats to PNG, but the idea
   was strongly opposed by Somare.

    

   It looks like Australia has been trying to overthrow Somare for several
   years, at least back to 2007 election in Howard's administration

    
    

   Earlier July, Australia seeks PNG support on regional asylum seeker
   processing center, following objection from East Timor, to have PNG's
   Manus Island as possible site for the center. As an effort to offer PNG in
   return for the support, Australia is talking with PNG on a huge gas
   project that worth 16 billion and due to begin production in 2014.
   Astralia sent Trade Minister Stephen Smith in talk with PNG Public
   Enterprises Minister Arthur Somare - Sr. Somare's son - on July 1, to
   discuss providing technical and advisory support as PNG establishes
   sovereign wealth funds. Australia also pledged 450 million aids to PNG.
   But PNG government on July 10 rejected proposal.  This will be problematic
   under O'Neill as one of his close advisors is a rather dodgy Norwegian(!),
   and former Telstra sales rep, who wants this for himself.

    
    
    

   MSG - Fiji Issue:

    
    

   China - OZ - South Pacific:

   Relations between PNG and Australia were seriously strained during Howard
   administration, following a series of diplomatic incidents, peaked with
   Moti Affairs. This period (2003-2007) has seen a steadily growing
   influence of China in PNG, as well as other South Pacific nations, taking
   full advantage of PNG-OZ ramification.

    

   China's interest in PNG lies in three areas: 1. mineral resources, timber
   and fishing, in particular, China and PNG signed investment deal in Ramu
   nickel project that worth 651 million dollars; 2. Geopolitical importance
   of creating a breakpoint from U.S-Japan-Australia naval containment; 3.

    

   In fact, as Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said -
   which is in consistent with my friend, China's aid to PNG \"tend to focus
   on prestige projects in a `chequebook diplomacy' competition, applying
   less rigorous standards of transparency, accountability and governance
   than other donors\". My friend says, in those Pacific countries - same as
   African countries, standards don't apply when it comes to investment.
   There was pre-study, and post-investigation, despite many items don't meet
   standard, the report still recommend a pass due to \"political
   considerations\". China's investment during 2005-2007 are primarily
   concentrated in infrastructure projects. According to a report The Dragon
   Looks South,  China's aid to PNG increased from 6.1 million dollars in
   2005, to 14.1 million in 2006, slightly decreased to 10.7 million in 2007.

    
    

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-08-05 05:05:33",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5060472_-alpha-insight-png-feedback-on-analysis-cn65-.html","clint.richards@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5070598,"[alpha] RESENDING - MUST READ Fwd: source evaluations - must read
","   It has come to my attention that if something is sent at night it is not
   seen as valuable as if it were sent during 8a-5p so I'm resending this. 
   This needs to change.  We operate 24/7.  This is mandatory for everyone to
   read and process.

   I also resent the insight lists this morning with the correct
   spreadsheet.  That is also mandatory reading.  If you need me to resend
   that as well, let me know.

   If there are any questions, please ask.  I will send an email later today
   or tomorrow on the intel meeting next week as mentioned in another email
   also sent last night.

   Jen

   -------- Original Message --------

    Subject: [alpha] source evaluations - must read                     
       Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:51:43 -0500                            
       From: Jennifer Richmond <richmond@stratfor.com>                  
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>                            
         To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>, watchofficer@stratfor.com 

   This is the first in several emails on our sourcing and insight
   collections.  To begin with, we will be meeting with everyone who has
   sources to evaluate them on the criteria and scoring below.  I will be in
   touch with everyone who has a source list within the next few weeks.  If
   you have sources but no source list, then you need to create one.  I will
   give details on this in a separate email. 

   All of those who need to update or create their list need to do so by
   Monday and send them to both myself and Anya.  If you need a source code
   number range, email me and I will get this set up for you so you can start
   the process.  For analysts with compiled lists with uncoded sources,
   please code these ASAP unless they are genuinely a one-off and then give
   an explanation.

   In the meantime, it would be best if everyone with sources start to
   evaluate each source by looking at least the past five insights and start
   to score them based on the criteria and scoring below so you are not
   scrambling when we are ready to set up an evaluation with you.  Also, from
   here on out, start to think about sources with these criteria and scoring
   in mind.  This will be the first of many periodic insight evaluations so
   its best for everyone to get acquainted with this method.

   For Watch Officers, please also start to think along these lines when you
   are reading insight.  In the future we will also look to you as objective
   source evaluators.  Also, please start to read the insight carefully and
   comment on it the same as you would a piece from OS.  As Reva said in our
   meeting today, we are starting to refocus on intel and insight.  As Watch
   Officers, you are well placed to comment on any anomalies presented in
   insights and compare it with what is being said in the media.

   If there are any questions or concerns, please ask.

   Jen

                               Sourcing Criteria

   The following are the proposed criteria for analyzing both sources and
   insight.

    

   1.     Source Timeliness

   2.     Source Accessibility/Position

   3.     Source Availability

   4.     Insight Credibility

   5.     Insight Uniqueness

    

    

   Source Timeliness:  This is the average grade on how long this particular
   source turns around tasks and replies to inquiries.  It may change but is
   more of a static indicator.

    

   Source Accessibility: Accessibility weighs the source's position to have
   certain knowledge in a particular field.  So, for example, if we are
   looking for energy insight and the source is an official in an energy
   agency, his or her Accessibility would be ranked higher than if s/he was a
   banker giving insight on energy.  While we would welcome a banker giving
   his/her insight, a good source may not have a high accessibility ranking
   if they aren't in a position to offer reliable insight on a certain topic.
   The source's access to decision makers, specific training or education in
   the desired topic area, specific knowledge of events/situations/incidents
   can also be considered.

    

   Source Availability:  How often can we go to this source?  Are they
   someone we can tap daily, weekly, monthly, yearly?

    

   Insight Credibility:  This is our assessment of the veracity of the
   insight offered.  Here we need to consider whether or not this is
   disinformation, speculation, correct data or knowledgeable interpretation.
   Any bias that the source is displaying or any specific viewpoints or
   personal background the source is using in the assessment provided should
   also be considered.

    

   Insight Uniqueness:  Is this insight something that could be found in OS? 
   If it is but the analysis of the information is unique, it would still
   have a high uniqueness ranking.  Or, if it is concrete data, but is
   something that is only offered to industry insiders, i.e. stats that
   aren't published but that aren't secret, it would still have a high
   uniqueness score.

    

    

                                    Scoring

   All of the above factors will be scored on an A-F scale, with A being
   exemplary and F being useless. 

    

   Source Timeliness:

   A = turnaround within 24 hours

   B = turnaround within 48 hours

   C = turnaround within a week

   D = turnaround within a month

   F = lucky to receive a reply at all

    

   Source Accessibility:

   A = Someone with intimate knowledge of the particular insight

   B = Someone within the industry but whose knowledge of the topic is not
   exact (e.g. if we were asking someone in the oil industry about natural
   gas)

   C = Someone working close to the industry who doesn't have intimate
   knowledge of a particular topic but can speak to it intelligently (e.g. a
   financial consultant asked to gauge the movement of the stock market)

   D = Someone who may know a country but doesn't have any concrete insight
   into a particular topic but can offer rumors and discussions heard on the
   topic

   F = Someone who has no knowledge of a particular industry at all

    

   Source Availability:

   A = Available pretty much whenever

   B = Can tap around once a week

   C = Can tap about once a month

   D = Can tap only several times a year

   F = Very limited availability

    

   Insight Credibility:

   A = We can take this information to the bank

   B = Good insight but maybe not entirely precise

   C = Insight is only partially true

   D = There may be some interest in the insight, but it is mostly false or
   just pure speculation.

   F = Likely to be disinformation

    

   Insight Uniqueness:

   A = Can't be found anywhere else

   B = Can only be found in limited circles

   C = Insight can be found in OS, but the source has an interesting
   take/analysis

   D = Insight can be found in OS, but still may not be common knowledge

   F = Insight is accessible in numerous locations

    

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-08-10 21:05:56",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5070598_-alpha-resending-must-read-fwd-source-evaluations-must-read-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5091635,"Re: A thought on open source practice
","   Well put.

   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Brian Genchur
   Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:44:22 -0500
   To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: A thought on open source practice

   I'd add another example to George's point.  The reason media come to us
   for information and analysis is because we are, by definition, not open
   source.  If we named all of our sources the same way the NYT does, then
   they would likely go to the 'primary source' of the information (where we
   collected it) rather than us.  The NYT wouldn't analyze it as well, but
   that's another point. 

   STRATFOR analysts BECOME sources for news outlets by using intelligence
   and analytical methods as opposed to purely news gathering techniques. 
   Journalists collect information and write down what others say.  You guys
   use your brains to analyze the information after collection, and then you
   say what that all means in context - something I think is far more
   valuable and interesting.  You then use history, analysis, whatever other
   magic you guys do...  to forecast.  By doing so, you add so much value to
   the information (open source or otherwise) that you become the NOT open
   source that you are - or more precisely - that STRATFOR is not.

   A journalist is taught to be a \"public watchdog\".  The 4th Estate.  Expose
   the information and let the public decide what it means (though with
   commentators, entertainers and columnists these days, the line is
   blurring).  I'm pretty sure that \"public watchdog\" wouldn't be the first
   way you'd describe yourself when it comes to what you do.  Though, I may
   be wrong.  A \"public watchdog\"'s role is to MAKE information open source.

   George Friedman wrote:

 And that is the weakness of the government vision and why I never use the term open source in relation to us.  When you talk to me1 or jen talks to china or the ct team spins up a source it is a degree of secret material. It is stone secret. The idea that clandestine collection is a government specialty has never worked with shell oil.  The government confuses the dissemination of information with the collection of information.  We are not at all like the nyt because their reporters always identify themselves as such. We may or may not as it suits us. This is the fundamental difference between journalism and intelligence. The source may never know he was a source, which is the definition of clandestine.   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T  -----Original Message----- From: Reva Bhalla <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>  Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:52:42 To: <friedman@att.blackberry.net>; Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com> Subject: Re: A thought on open source practice   that's true, the way the govt defines open sources is:  Any and all information that can be derived from overt collection: all types of media, government reports, scientific research, Internet, commercial vendors of info, etc. The main qualifies to open source information are that it does not require any type of clandestine collection techniques to obtain it.  for the USG, it doesn't require clandestine collection to obtain what Strat writes. But STrat product does require some level of secret sourcing. So by this definition, Stratfor isn't any definition than a NYT reporter with a source.  On Mar 30, 2009, at 9:47 PM, George Friedman wrote:   

 I agree except that I don't regard us as open source. We publish much of what we know but our souring includes what will be a growing amount of non open source material. So I'm rejecting the government definition of open source. We publush our findings but our sources are far from open. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T  -----Original Message----- From: Reva Bhalla <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>  Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:41:34 To: <friedman@att.blackberry.net>; Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com> Subject: Re: A thought on open source practice   agree, and those all good points, but the industry is also slowly transforming to greater appreciate open source intelligence, like Stratfor. With technological advancements, information is everywhere. Some of it highly misleading written on blogs by the crazy Kazakhs and Ukrainians who write to us. Others, like Strat and other valuable databases of information, are accessed regularly by top policymakers, creating a crisis for many within the covert source realm. in reality, both can't survive without each other. there is a strong case for both open source and covert sources, but there will always be that so- called elitism in the classified world.  regardless, as an open source institution, there is a good niche for us in this market and we should all take pride in the different ways we build up our reputation, whether through the open source material we collect and disseminate, through the intel we collect through our own sources, through the analysis we piece together, through the PR efforts to get our name out there, etc.     On Mar 30, 2009, at 9:32 PM, George Friedman wrote:     

 In order for this to be understood we must distinguish the proper use of open source from the governments use.  For usg, open source is anything not classified. The most secret source used by stratfor is still open source in their mind.  Open source should be defined as published and publicly accessible sources. Covert sources are unpublished sources.  What needs to be added to this mix is common gossip.  This is a form of intelligence that sometimes contains value but too frequently is simply idle chatter.  Too much of what is called intelligence is idle chatter by people who don't really know anything.  This is the trap.  So nyes point on published material is valid. Most of what is true is widely known and published. But his definition of covert intelligence is insufficient. The assumption that classified information is superior to covert intelligence gathered by others is the conceit of the intelligence community and leads them into constant error.   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T  -----Original Message----- From: Reva Bhalla <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>  Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:17:18 To: Analyst List<analysts@stratfor.com> Subject: A thought on open source practice   Joseph Nye, during his tenure at the NIC, said:  \"open source intelligence is the outer pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, without which one can neither begin nor complete the puzzle\"  if you think about our daily work, we rely heavily on open source to fill out the frame of our analysis, and fill in the real picture with critical pieces of intel. After much time and labor, we can finally complete the picture, and that should be the ultimate satisfaction of the analyst and the collector.  just a thought..      

   

 -- {\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\cocoartf949\cocoasubrtf430 {\fonttbl\f0\fswiss\fcharset0 Helvetica;} {\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;} \margl1440\margr1440\vieww9000\viewh8400\viewkind0 \pard\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\ql\qnatural\pardirnatural  \f0\fs24 \cf0 Brian Genchur\ Public Relations Manager\ STRATFOR\pr@stratfor.com\ 512 744 4309}
","2009-03-31 05:50:37",1,"2012-02-27 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5091635_re-a-thought-on-open-source-practice-.html","friedman@att.blackberry.net","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com",""
5095199,"[alpha] MORE Re:  MORE Re:  INSIGHT - PNG - New PM - via CN65
","   A little more background on this guy:

   Quite corrupt.  I know him.  He is manipulated by a rather bad egg from
   Norway, who couldn't run a used car lot, but is now O'Neil's economic
   advisor.
   O'Neil is not any more pro-Western than anyone else up there.  As long as
   he makes money for himself (he has significant business investments in
   mobile phones, among other things), he couldn't really care less.
   One thing that can't be disputed, though, i that O'Neil represents a
   generational change compared to previous PMs.

   On 8/2/11 7:03 AM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

     In response to the numbers give in the original insight:

     Oh, now I realise.  These are the numbers in the Chamber: 77 for the
     government, 31 for the Opposition, and the Speaker.

     On 8/2/11 6:42 AM, Benjamin Preisler wrote:

       *I think they probably meant to type 07/31 but will double check with
       source.

       SOURCE: via CN65
       ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
       natural resources
       SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
       PUBLICATION: Yes
       SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
       ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1
       SPECIAL HANDLING: None
       SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

         Png has a new PM Peter O'Neil, opposition will form new gov 77/31
          

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 +216 22 73 23 19

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com


 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 China Director
 Director of International Projects
 (512) 422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-08-02 17:01:41",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5095199_-alpha-more-re-more-re-insight-png-new-pm-via-cn65-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5107155,"[alpha] INSIGHT - AUSTRALIA - Stability of the OZ government - CN65
","   SOURCE: CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen
   I know you don't generally cover domestic politics (a rule more honoured
   int he breach than in the observance sometimes) but this should interest
   your guys:
   http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/alp-rallies-to-salvage-asylum-deal-tony-crook-to-be-focus-of-attention/story-fn59niix-1226162536208
   Basically, the government is on the verge of collapse.  It is a minority
   government to begin with, but it has been run incredibly badly.
   We are now at the point where there is little that can be believed in
   terms of the government's ability to deliver, even on Budget Bills.  One
   of the questions Obama needs to answer is whether any international
   agreements with Australia can be assured of being honoured.
","2011-10-10 04:05:14",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5107155_-alpha-insight-australia-stability-of-the-oz-government-cn65.html","clint.richards@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5114800,"Re: Fwd: [Africa] Fw: [OS] SOUTH AFRICA/CT- Wikileaks exposes SA
 spy boss
","   Ok I re-read the reference to Oct. 2009 and I may have read it wrong. It
   could be read instead of cables from Oct., Shaik was appointed SASS head
   then.

   On 1/25/11 2:17 PM, Anya Alfano wrote:

     Hey Mark,
     No, I don't see anything from October 2009.  I was looking back at the
     article you posted below and I think the three cables I sent contain all
     of the quotes listed, but so far, I don't see any cables released that
     month.
     Anya 

     On 1/25/11 3:10 PM, Mark Schroeder wrote:

       Thanks, Anya.

       Could you check again for any cable from Oct. 2009 in particular?

       Thanks again.

       On 1/25/11 2:05 PM, Anya Alfano wrote:

         Found it -- more about Zuma than Shaik, though.

         Confidential cable from the US Embassy Pretoria to the Secretary of
         State Washington DC (and others), June 4 2009:

         SUBJECT: ZUMA'S CABINET IS BRILLIANT POLITICALLY, BUT WILL IT BE
         EFFECTIVE?

         PRETORIA

         Classified By: POLITICAL COUNSELOR RAYMOND L. BROWN FOR REASONS 1.4
         (B) AND (D).

         Summary

         1. Newly elected President Jacob Zuma's Cabinet is settling in
         following the swearing in ceremony on May 11.

         Most political analysts and pundits have praised Zuma's selections
         -- lauding some for their managerial skills, some for their
         willingness to bring new ideas to government, and some for their
         political power within the ruling tripartite alliance. Although the
         Cabinet choices reflect a wide range of experiences and political
         alignments, it remains to be seen whether some new ministerial teams
         -- notably in education and home affairs -- will be effective in
         addressing the country's biggest societal issues. End Summary.

         ANC, Zuma Makes Their Moves

         2. President Zuma announced his Cabinet selections last month
         following lengthy consultations with the African National Congress
         (ANC). Zuma's discussions with the ANC over Cabinet composition and
         size suggest that the new President is being true to his word that
         he will rely on as many players as possible when making decisions.
         (Note: Some would argue that he was too true to his word, as Zuma
         arrived at the press conference to announce the Cabinet thirty
         minutes late.

         His delay was reportedly because of last minute infighting within
         the ANC and the tripartite alliance -- composed of the ANC, the
         South African Communist Party (SACP) and the trade union federation
         COSATU) -- over Cabinet choices. End Note.) The ANC and Zuma ensured
         that the Cabinet is balanced between those generally seen as
         populist and those generally described as pro-business. Moreover,
         the party and Zuma made sure to accommodate some officials often
         seen as close to former President Thabo Mbeki such as Charles
         Nqakula and Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma.

         However, this cabinet is very pro-Zuma, made up of some of his
         closest political supporters and members of the alliance. The
         message that Zuma reportedly sought to send is that there will be
         general continuance of macro-policy structures (albeit with some
         changes to the ministries' composition) with some changes to
         micro-policy formulation and implementation.

         Choices Draw Praise, But Questions Remain

         3. (SBU) Reactions to Zuma's Cabinet selections have been largely
         positive. Alec Russell, author of \"South Africa After Mandela,\"
         noted that investors would breathe a sigh of relief and \"say it
         looks like he intends to keep macro-economic policies on the same
         track.\" He stated, \"It says, 'I'm not a scary populist who's going
         to send policy sharply to the left.' It says, 'I listen to business
         and I'm aware of their concerns.'\" Political analyst William Gumede
         noted that \"he got it right on the economic cluster of ministries.\"
         He further said, \"It does say clearly that he wants to get the
         economy right. That's where his priorities are.\" University of
         Pretoria political scientist Roland Henwood noted that the Cabinet
         selections were generally outstanding. However, he related that even
         though Zuma's choices were brilliant politically, there are serious
         questions about how effective the ministers will be at questions
         about how effective the ministers will be at delivery. He quipped,
         \"(Basic Education Minister) Angie Motshekga and (Correctional
         Services Minister) Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula are disastrous at
         delivering quick results.

         Also, I have serious questions about whether (International
         Relations Minister) Maite Nkoana-Mashabane is up to the task of
         leading a professional foreign policy.\" There are questions about
         how effective Zuma's appointments would be in addressing social
         issues. Gumede noted that while the appointments are impressive in
         balancing party factions, they are less impressive in terms of
         improving delivery. He stated, \"People see the Home Affairs ministry
         as absolute incompetence (at home) and abroad as well (sic). It's
         just a lax department. Everything from passports to travel
         documents, everything needs to be fixed. One would have expected
         someone more inspiring (than Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma). We didn't get
         that.\" (Note: It is noteworthy that one of Minister Dlamini-Zuma's
         first statements about her new ministry was to clearly admit that it
         was riddled with corruption that allowed its travel, identity and
         other documents to be produced illegally. End Note.)

         Cabinet Picks Highlight Key Trends

         4. While some questions remain over whether the new Cabinet can
         deliver, Zuma's selections demonstrate a number of important trends
         worth watching during the next five years. Each of the trends below
         will have implications both for the 2011 municipal election and the
         2012 ruling party congress:

         -- The presidency will be larger, more powerful, and will have more
         formal advisers in the President's office than there were under
         Mbeki. This will be a key development as businessmen, diplomats, and
         statesmen seek to win access to work with the Zuma government. In
         addition to Collins Chabane and Trevor Manuel, Zuma will look to
         former Minister of Defense Nqakula on political matters, Mandisi
         Mpahlwa on economic affairs, Lindiwe Zulu on international affairs,
         Ayanda Dlodlo on affairs related to Parliament, and Bonisiwe Makhene
         on legal issues. Under the Mbeki and Motlanthe administrations,
         Nqakula served both as Minister of Safety and Security and Minister
         of Defense. Mpahlwa served as Minister of Trade and Industry and
         Deputy Minister of Finance in previous administrations. Zulu, a
         member of the ANC's National Executive Committee, served as South
         African Ambassador to Brazil until December 2008. Dlodlo is also a
         member of the ANC's National Executive Committee and is the
         Secretary General of the Military Affairs Association; she has close
         ties to Lindiwe Sisulu. Makhene is currently deputy chief state law
         adviser in the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development,
         but will be seconded to the Presidency later this month. According
         to informal Zuma adviser Mo Shaik, the informal advisers were
         selected as concessions to \"keep them quiet.\" The only person Shaik
         considers close to Zuma is Zulu on international affairs.

         -- Not only will there be more formal presidential advisers, there
         also will be more ministers. The ANC expanded the Cabinet from 28 to
         34 ministries. This will be an important trend to watch because it
         could create a bureaucracy larger than anything that South Africa
         has seen since 1994. Some political commentators, including Roland
         Henwood, claim that Zuma has \"Africanized the Cabinet.\" The argument
         goes that Zuma increased the size of the Cabinet to accommodate his
         allies, but in doing so has created what could be a potentially
         unwieldy policy process similar to what has happened in other
         African countries.

         -- The ANC wants to retain Limpopo Province's loyalty. This will be
         a key goal as the ruling party seeks to ward off opponents in the
         2011 election and as the ANC prepares for its next party congress.
         Several of the senior players in Zuma's government hail from
         Limpopo, which is a strategically important province that helped
         sway ANC members to Zuma at the December 2007 ruling party congress.
         Limpopo also promises to be a key battleground province during the
         2011 municipal elections. The Congress of the People has
         consistently said Limpopo is a province it can win and can
         consistently said Limpopo is a province it can win and can build the
         local structures necessary to govern at the municipal level. Cabinet
         players with connections to Limpopo include Chabane, Aaron
         Motsoaledi, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, Richard Baloyi, Joe Phaahla, and
         Rejoice Mabhudafhasi.

         -- Zuma, under the auspices of the ANC, wants some KwaZulu Natal
         allies kept close. This will be a key trend because there already
         are questions over some of Zuma's business deals in the past, many
         of which have dogged the President since the conviction of his
         former business associate Schabir Shaik. Zuma's Cabinet includes
         several leaders that he forged connections to during his time as a
         premier in KwaZulu Natal. The ministerial team includes Ebrahim
         Patel, Musa Nhlanhla Nene, Malusi Gigaba, Jeff Radebe, Nathi
         Mthethwa, Roy Padayachie, Siyabonga Cwele, Sbusiso Ndebele, and
         Noluthando Mayende-Sibiya.

         -- The ANC is unafraid, at least for now, of competing centers of
         power. This is perhaps the most important trend, but the one that
         may change the most over time. The party will have ministers with
         strong personalities in the Cabinet, such as Minister of Planning in
         the Presidency Manuel and Minister of Home Affairs Dlamini-Zuma,
         along with strong leaders from Luthuli House such as ANC Secretary
         General Gwede Mantashe and ANC Treasurer Matthews Phosa. Although
         the ANC seems satisfied with this arrangement, such a dynamic is
         likely to be key in setting the stage for succession battles ahead
         of the ANC's 2012 ruling party congress. If power in Luthuli House
         outweighs power in government (as many political analysts predict),
         Mantashe, Phosa, or Baleka Mbete may hold the inside track over
         whether Zuma stays on as party leader or whether a new leader
         emerges ahead of the next election. Both the Congress of South
         African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African Communist Party
         (SACP) also seem unafraid of competing centers of power, but perhaps
         less satisfied with the arrangement than the ANC. Some of the most
         visible leaders from the tripartite alliance (Jeremy Cronin, Blade
         Nzimande, and Rob Davies) will be serving in the Cabinet, but COSATU
         Secretary General Zwelenzima Vavi has opted to remain outside the
         government. Similarly, SACP plans to hold leadership discussions
         about whether having Nzimande in the government will remain viable
         for the communist party over the longer term.

         Opportunities for Engagement

         5. The new team offers the United States new opportunities for
         continuing and future engagement. New Health Minister Aaron
         Motsoaledi wants to continue work started by Barbara Hogan to
         address the country's ongoing battle against HIV/AIDS, according to
         most political analysts and leading South African commentators. The
         new ministry of Basic Education wants to improve the quality of
         South African primary education, and Zuma has said that he wants
         that body to establish a \"Head Start\" program similar to the one in
         place in the United States. Even though Motshekga is viewed as a
         weak choice for heading the ministry, deputy Enver Surty and Gauteng
         Minister in the Executive Committee Barbara Creecy are capable
         bureaucrats and have experience working with international partners
         to make progress on core policy goals. Also, the new Ministry of
         Police intends to address crime and, specifically, crime prevention
         ahead of the 2010 World Cup. Beyond these areas, there may be
         avenues for greater cooperation in public enterprises,
         transportation, and higher education.

         Comment

         6. Zuma and the ANC delivered a Cabinet that addresses the political
         balance of power between the party and the government. Political
         analysts say that Zuma's team has some solid managers who can bring
         new ideas to government while at the same time keep the tripartite
         alliance as close as it has been in years. Despite this optimism,
         however, there are serious questions about whether the new team can
         deliver better than the old one. In some areas, like Public
         Enterprises under Barbara Hogan and Water and Environmental Affairs
         under Patience Sonjica, there is reason for hope. In other areas,
         however, like Basic Education, Correctional Services, and Home
         Affairs, critics already are worried that QServices, and Home
         Affairs, critics already are worried that little will change.
         Perhaps the single greatest determinant for how well the Zuma
         government functions -- and what happens in 2011, 2012, and beyond
         -- will be whether the Cabinet and the ANC can work together without
         one impeding or superseding the other.

         LA LIME

         On 1/25/11 1:35 PM, Mark Schroeder wrote:

           Thanks, Anya -- though could you see if there are any cables from
           the Oct. 2009 period? The news story mentioned some from that time
           period also.

           Thanks.

           On 1/25/11 12:25 PM, Anya Alfano wrote:

             Actually, one more --

             Confidential cable from the US Embassy Pretoria to the Secretary
             of State, Washington DC (and others), September 10 2008:

             SUBJECT: ZUMA ADVISOR THREATENS TO EXPOSE POLITICAL SKELETONS
             (C-AL8-01396)

             Classified By: Political Counselor Raymond L. Brown. Reasons
             1.4(b) an d (d).

             1. On 28 August, Zuma advisor Mo Shaik told PolOff that Zuma's
             legal team intends to subpoena \"everyone\" if Zuma loses his bid
             to have his case reexamined. Shaik specifically named President
             Mbeki, suspended National Police Chief Jackie Selebi, former and
             Acting Head of National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP)
             Vusi Pikoli and Mokotedi Mpshe, and former speaker of Parliament
             Frene Ginwala as potential witnesses. Shaik complained that all
             of these people know Zuma is innocent and that he does not
             understand why they have not come to Zuma's defense before now.

             2. Shaik also spoke at length about Zuma's current legal case,
             complaining that the facts in Zuma's case have been gathered and
             interpreted by National Prosecuting Authority only as a means of
             obtaining a conviction and preventing Zuma from becoming
             President, and not as a means of seeking the truth. Therefore,
             he said, the question is not whether the rule of law should
             prevail, but whether its abuse should continue. All Zuma is
             asking is the chance to explain to the NPA the facts gathered
             against him, he said. When PolOff asked if this wasn't what the
             trial was for, he told her she was not listening. Then in a very
             slow and patient tone, Shaik again \"explained\" that all the NPA
             has to do is treat the Zuma case in an \"impartial,
             non-political, truth-seeking manner, then they (the NPA) will
             come to understand Zuma is innocent.\" (NOTE: In a recent
             newspaper editorial, Shaik argued a similar case but added that
             his brother Schabir Shaik's financial contributions to Zuma were
             given as a \"comrade and friend,\" and not given with criminal
             intentions.

             The court's decision in May to have Shaik's assets forfeited in
             light of the corrupt relationship with Zuma sharply contradicts
             Shaik's reasoning. END NOTE)

             3. NOTE: On 12 September, Zuma will learn whether or not the
             state's decision to prosecute him without consulting him was
             legal. If Zuma loses the case, his trial for corruption,
             racketeering, tax evasion, and fraud will proceed, though a
             court date has still not been agreed upon by the state and
             defense. The thrust of Zuma's case rests on section 179(5)(d) of
             the Constitution which states that the NDPP may review a
             decision to prosecute after consulting with the relevant
             director of public prosecutions (DPP) and after taking
             representations from the accused. Shaik and Zuma's lawyers argue
             the Constitution guarantees the right to make representation
             when the NPA reverses a decision, and that Zuma was not given
             the opportunity when NPA \"reversed\" its decision and decided to
             recharge Zuma in December 2007. The state has argued that the
             decision to recharge Zuma did not amount to a reversal and that
             the law was not designed to protect the accused, but rather to
             protect the rights of the DPPs having their decisions overturned
             by the NDPP without consideration. END NOTE.

             4. COMMENT: As usual, Shaik treated PolOff as a friend, a child,
             a confident, and an adversary all in the same conversation. He
             always shares insights into the motivations and strategies of
             the Zuma camp, but also expects obvious respect and gratitude
             for it. PolOff does not know if Shaik meets with other
             diplomats, but presumes his contact within the diplomatic circle
             is limited. The Australian High Commissioner mentioned he had
             met Shaik once and Shaik QCommissioner mentioned he had met
             Shaik once and Shaik admitted he spoke to the Norwegians but did
             not say if this was on a regular or one-time basis. PolOff also
             knows Shaik used to meet with the French, but cut them off after
             a French diplomat insulted him immediately before the ANC
             conference at Polokwane. The Irish Ambassador asked PolOff to
             facilitate a meeting after seeing Shaik and PolOff together in a
             restaurant, but Shaik refused, telling PolOff she should guard
             her contacts more closely.

             END COMMENT.

             BOST

             On 1/25/11 1:11 PM, Mark Schroeder wrote:

               Hi Anya,

               Is there any chance you would know where to look to find this
               original cable? Thanks for any help.

               --Mark

               -------- Original Message --------

                Subject: [Africa] Fw: [OS] SOUTH AFRICA/CT- Wikileaks exposes 
                         SA spy boss                                          
                   Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:53:10 +0000                      
                   From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>               
               Reply-To: Africa AOR <africa@stratfor.com>                     
                     To: Africa AOR <africa@stratfor.com>                     

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

               From: Sean Noonan <sean.noonan@stratfor.com>
               Sender: os-bounces@stratfor.com
               Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 10:37:07 -0600
               To: The OS List<os@stratfor.com>
               ReplyTo: The OS List <os@stratfor.com>
               Subject: [OS] SOUTH AFRICA/CT- Wikileaks exposes SA spy boss
               Wikileaks exposes SA spy boss
               2011-01-23 09:19
               http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Wikileaks-exposes-SA-spy-boss-20110123

               Johannesburg - An explosive Wikileaks cable claims that spy
               boss and President Jacob Zuma confidante Moe Shaik threatened
               to expose the \"political skeletons\" of Zuma's enemies and
               reveals that he was cultivated by the Americans as a key
               informant within the Zuma camp.

               The fresh revelations are likely to shake the Zuma
               administration as they involve one of the president's key
               allies and the man tasked with running the country's secret
               service. They give new insight into the bitter battle which
               took place between Zuma's allies and those aligned to former
               President Thabo Mbeki prior to Mbeki's ousting.

               The confidential US Embassy diplomatic cable - titled Zuma
               advisor threatens to expose political skeletons- claims South
               African Secret Service boss Shaik, brother of convicted
               fraudster and Zuma funder Schabir, told the Americans that
               Zuma's legal team would subpoena the country's most
               influential figures if he lost a bid to have corruption
               charges against him \"re-examined\".

               The cable said he named Mbeki, the then suspended police
               commissioner Jackie Selebi, former director of Public
               Prosecutions Vusi Pikoli, then acting head of public
               prosecutions Mokotedi Mpshe as well as former  Speaker Frene
               Ginwala as targets.

               Shaik has refused to confirm or deny the claims.

               The cable - one of 250 000 leaked to Whistleblower website
               Wikileaks but obtained exclusively by Media24 Investigations -
               also reveals that the US Embassy in Pretoria actively
               cultivated Shaik as a key source of information on Zuma's
               inner circle and the \"motivations and strategies of the Zuma
               camp\".

               Dated September 10 2008, two days before corruption charges
               against Zuma were initially dismissed by Judge Chris
               Nicholson, the cable was sent to the Secretary of State in
               Washington DC and copied to US consuls in Durban and Cape
               Town, the CIA, the US Defence Intelligence Agency and the
               White House National Security Council.

               It is one of a number of classified cables recording meetings
               between Shaik - who was controversially appointed head of the
               South African Secret Service (SASS), South Africa's foreign
               intelligence wing, in October 2009 - and an unidentified US
               embassy political officer.

               \"Shaik complained that all these people know Zuma is innocent
               and that he does not understand why they have not come to
               Zuma's defence before now,\" the cable noted.

               Shared insights

               The cable noted that \"as usual\" Shaik treated the political
               officer or \"PolOff\" as \"a friend, a child, a confidante, and
               an adversary all in the same conversation\".

               \"He always shares insights into the motivations and strategies
               of the Zuma camp, but also expects obvious respect and
               gratitude for it.\"

               \"PolOff does not know if Shaik meets with other diplomats, but
               presumes his contact within the diplomatic circle is limited.\"

               \"The Australian High Commissioner mentioned he had met Shaik
               once before...and Shaik admitted he spoke to the Norwegians
               but did not say if this was on a regular or one-time basis.\"

               The cable notes that Shaik \"used to meet with the French, but
               cut them off after a French diplomat insulted him immediately
               before the ANC conference at Polokwane\".

               Ousting Mbeki

               The political officer reported that the Irish ambassador had
               approached her to arrange a meeting with Shaik after seeing
               her and Shaik in a restaurant together, \"but Shaik refused,
               telling PolOff she should guard her contacts more closely\".

               A source familiar with Shaik's interaction with the US
               diplomats claimed this week that Shaik had been tasked with
               winning diplomats over to the idea of a Zuma presidency.

               An earlier confidential cable, dated May 16 2008 speculated -
               after a meeting with Shaik - that the \"Zuma camp may be
               looking to oust Mbeki\".

               In a cable, dated June 4 2009, that focused on President
               Zuma's new cabinet, Shaik is said to have described the
               appointments of various presidential advisers, among them
               Collins Chabane - now minister in the presidency for
               performance monitoring, Ayanda Dlodlo - now deputy minister of
               public service and administration, Mandisi Mpahlwa - now envoy
               to Moscow, Lindiwe Zulu, Zuma's international affairs advisor
               and Bonisiwe Makhene as concessions to \"keep them quiet\".

               No comment

               Contacted this week, Shaik said: \"I will neither confirm nor
               deny that we had discussions with the Americans on these
               matters and I will definitely make no comment about the
               accuracy of those reports. The Americans must deal with
               accuracy.\"

               US embassy spokesperson Elizabeth Kennedy-Trudeau said the
               embassy would not confirm or comment on the contents or
               veracity of \"stolen documents\".

               \"The nature of cables in themselves is that these are one
               person's interpretation of a meeting, not official US public
               policy. The circumstances, because of the very nature of spot
               reporting are open to interpretation.\"
                

               - Rapport
               --

               Sean Noonan

               Tactical Analyst

               Office: +1 512-279-9479

               Mobile: +1 512-758-5967

               Strategic Forecasting, Inc.

               www.stratfor.com
","2011-01-25 21:20:16",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5114800_re-fwd-africa-fw-os-south-africa-ct-wikileaks-exposes-sa-spy.html","mark.schroeder@stratfor.com","","anya.alfano@stratfor.com",""
5120519,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5120519_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5131896,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
	CODE
","   Agree
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:59:46 -0600 (CST)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>; Korena Zucha<zucha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   I'll bet cash they are connected to the Austin guys busted for the DNC
   plot plus some of the Austin Earth First jabronis. 
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:51:44 -0600
   To: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>, Alpha List
   <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Have we seen Deep Green Resistance carry-out acts of violence in the
   past? 

   On 11/16/2011 6:38 PM, Korena Zucha wrote:

     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.
","2011-11-18 21:17:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5131896_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5142017,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We too have always question the veracity of the kidnapping claim, but the
   premise made sense. 
   The alleged \"Anonymous\" activist kidnapped was reportedly engaged in a
   physical distribution of leaflets as a part of what they called Operation
   Paperstorm. This real-workd activity would make an otherwise \"anonymous\"
   activist vulnerable to real-world detection and abduction - especially
   while posting flyers denouncing government corruption and support for Los
   Zetas. 
   Also, we made the opposite argument in our weekly. We noted that the US,
   British and Turkish governments have arrested hundreds of these guys, so
   they are not all that anonymous, and we believed the Mexican Government
   and the cartels likely had the capability to identify at least some of
   them too. 
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:27:01 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
   Source Code: US711
   PUBLICATION: Yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
   responsibilities
   SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
   his take)
   SPECIAL HANDLING: None
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

   I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
   article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she be
   kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
   anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous, because
   someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first place.  It is
   anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped victim and not
   the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a kidnapping victim
   anyway not under such threats.  If they did they already know who
   anonymous is as I am certain they would have interrogated the anonymous
   victim before letting him/her go.  This is why I do not even believe there
   was a kidnapping in the first place.  If the Zetas can find out who
   anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S. Governments.  The Zetas are not
   that good above what the U.S. and Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think
   the kidnapping was a hoax.

   Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
   http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
   November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

   Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

   The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
   Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
   Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
   Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
   the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

   Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
   comment.

   The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its demand
   that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to do so will
   force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers, journalists and
   police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking group known for
   displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

   In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
   Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask of
   Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the Zetas if
   the kidnapped hacker is not released.

   Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
   consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
   cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves by
   Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

   Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
   track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

   The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
   the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that the
   kidnapping was a hoax.
","2011-11-10 19:47:39",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5142017_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5153399,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
","   this dude really gives the impression that Moscow calls the shots in Kiev

   so basically, Med gets pissed b/c Timo is blowing Putin and not him, so he
   whines to Putin and says drop the B and get behind Yanu like me. Putin
   says fine, Yanu gets excited and oversteps his boundaries, and now Putin
   is like fix this shit Med and Med is like okay, but we dont know what Med
   is actually gonna do to slap Yanu around

   so what's the couterargument to this? Does Russia really have this much
   influence over the situation?  this is something we need to address in
   ukraine reassessment

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Marc Lanthemann\" <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
   Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111

   CODE: UA111
   PUBLICATION:  yes
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
   DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
   HANDLER: Lauren

    

   Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
   But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
   this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
   begin with.

    

   You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
   power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
   Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
   solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
   Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
   easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
   her in trouble and arrested.

    

   But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
   respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
   made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
   deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
   Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
   the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
   military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
   it had been pushing for.

    

   So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
   the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
   to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
   demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.

    

   Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
   to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
   against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
   will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2011-09-14 20:55:23",1,"2012-02-28 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5153399_re-alpha-insight-ukraine-moscow-kiev-spat-ua111-.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5175172,"[alpha] INSIGHT - CHINA - News about Ore Prices and SSY Futures Ltd
 Iron Ore Report - via CN65
","   SOURCE: via CN65
   ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government and 
   natural resources
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator
   PUBLICATION: Yes, but without attribution (please speak with me first)
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: A
   SPECIAL HANDLING: Speak with me before any publication
   SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

     Iron Ore Prices:

          Physical iron ore prices remained little changed on
     Wednesday.

          There is still very little trading activity as China
     remains to the sidelines whilst dealing with delays in
     discharging of existing purchased ore due to bad weather.
     Especially high winds at some discharge ports (EG Rhizao and
     Liangyungang) continues to prevent berthing and shifting.
     Bad weather delays are also reducing takeaway capacity
     which is significantly reducing China's daily import capacity
     and has caused heavy congestion in Her ports. China is focusing
     to clear Her congestion before purchasing fresh spot ore which
     would attract additonal heavy congestion charges and add to
     delivered costs.

         In the meantime the affect of Chinese congestion is to
     continue to delay arrivals for ongoing shipments forcing miners
     to fix spot spot replacement vessels which just yesterday (since
     Rhizao/Lianyungang closures due to high winds the day before)
     has forced Woz/Qingdao spot rates back up from USD 11.50 to
     USD 13.30 reported fixed late last night for a 16-20 dec
     arrival West Aussie.

          Rio Tinto sold a 165kt cargo of Australian 57% Fe Robe
     River fines at $125.68/dmt CFR Qingdao through a tender.

          Indian miner Fomento sold two Panamax cargoes of 57/56%
     Fe material at $98/dmt FOPB Goa.

          Bagadiya Bros dropped their offer for Indian 63.5/63 Fe
     fines, to $144/$148 from $148/$151 overnight.  

          The TSI was marked down just 20 cents with Platts
     unchanged.

     TSI 62% (3.5% Al):   $139.40 (-$0.20)       
     PLATTS 62%:          $141.50 (unch)       
     MBIOI 62%:           $139.91 (+$0.21)
     TSI 62% (2.0% Al):   $140.90 (-$0.20)

     Market comments:

         Offers for iron ore cargoes have dropped with Indian 63.5/63
     grade material down to $148 a tonne from $151 earlier this week,
     reports Reuters.

         Top iron ore miner Vale sold two cargoes this week at prices
     lower than index-based reference prices. One cargo with 246,000
     tonnes of 64.4-grade iron ore fines was sold at $144.15 a tonne,
     C&F, and another shipment with 236,000 tonnes of 63.2-grade fines
     was sold at $141.5 a tonne, both via tenders, Reuters added.

         Global miners, including Vale, Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton ,
     are all running their production at full capacity, convinced Chinese
     demand will remain strong as the country continues to invest
     heavily in urbanisation and infrastructure, reports Reuters.

         China's average daily crude steel output in late November
     rose for the first time since late September, although doubts
     remain about underlying steel demand as the government's
     clampdown on the property sector stayed in place, Reuters added.

         Vale SA, the world.s largest iron-ore producer, said it.s
     in talks with customers including ArcelorMittal and China Steel
     Corp. to cut contract prices after clients pressured the company
     to revise its pricing system, reports Bloomberg. Almost
     80 percent of the company.s iron-ore sales are based on the
     current quarter.s price, compared with a previous system that
     used the period ending a month before the onset of a new
     quarter, Jose Carlos Martins, head of iron-ore and strategy
     for Vale, said. .With the recent drop in prices we got a lot
     of pressure from customers to change. the pricing system,
     Martins told reporters during a press conference after Vale
     hosted a meeting with investors. .We are more flexible to
     accept the price reality from the market..

         Fortescue Metals Group, Australia's third-biggest exporter
     of iron ore, sees strong prices for the steelmaking ingredient
     in 2012 with potential for quick declines similar to those
     seen this year, reports The Sydney Morning Herald.

         Prices .will be reasonably strong, but don't be surprised
     if there's a couple of sudden dips,. Chairman Andrew Forrest
     said in an interview in London today. .I call reasonable
     anything above $US100. That's a good sustainable iron ore price..

         In November this year, iron ore shipments from Australia's
     Port Hedland increased by 25.9% YoY and were slightly down
     by 0.4% MoM, totaling 19.8 million tonnes, reports Steel Guru.

         According to Port Hedland Port Authority, iron ore shipments
     made from Port Hedland to China amounted to 14.73 million
     tonnes in November, decreasing by 0.1% compared to October
     of the current year and up 24.3% YoY. Japan was the second
     largest export destination for iron ore shipments from Port
     Hedland, with shipments totaling 2.4 million metric tonnes
     up by 23.9% YoY and up 10.4% from October.

 --

 Benjamin Preisler
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +216 22 73 23 19
 www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-12-09 12:39:09",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5175172_-alpha-insight-china-news-about-ore-prices-and-ssy-futures.html","ben.preisler@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com","attach/8/8666_20111208_IronOreReport.pdf"
5192411,"Re: Wikileaks -- South Africa, May 16, 2008
","   Did you find the one related to our meeting?

   Nate Taylor
   512 970 7576
   On Jan 26, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Mark Schroeder <mark.schroeder@stratfor.com>
   wrote:

     Confidential cable from the US Embassy Pretoria to the Secretary of
     State, Washington DC (and others), May 16 2008:

     SUBJECT: ZUMA CAMP MAY BE LOOKING TO OUST MBEKI

     Classified By: Political Counselor Raymond L. Brown. Reasons 1.4(b) and
     (d).

     1. On 14 May, PolOff met with Zuma advisor Mo Shaik who told her that
     Zuma is likely to assume the national Presidency before March or April
     next year, when parliamentary elections would normally be held. When
     asked if the Zuma camp had enough votes in Parliament (three-quarters)
     needed to call a vote of no-confidence, Shaik replied, \"that would not
     be an issue.\"

     However, he also asked PolOff if she had ever considered a scenario
     where Mbeki's entire Cabinet deserted him, forcing him to resign.

     PolOff asked why Mbeki couldn't just appoint a new Cabinet, but Shaik
     answered with another question, asking \"who would join Mbeki's cabinet
     now? It would be suicide.\" He also added that momentum is building in
     the ANC for Mbeki's removal and that the business community was
     \"begging\" them to do it.

     2. PolOff also met on 15 May with a French diplomat, who confirmed that
     he was hearing the same thing from the Zuma camp and some other
     diplomats (especially the Germans), but said he did not believe Mbeki
     would back down so easily. He added that there is no evidence that Mbeki
     is willing to cave to the Zuma camp, pointing out that Mbeki is still
     putting off ANC Secretary General Kgalema Motlanthe's inclusion into his
     cabinet. (NOTE: When PolOff asked Shaik what position Motlanthe will
     assume, he snidely said, \"Why don't you ask your friend Mbeki?\" END
     NOTE)

     3. BIO NOTE. Meeting Shaik is always work, but this meeting was
     particularly pointed and painful, with Shaik coming across as vengeful,
     insecure, and antagonistic. Over time, PolOff has managed to build some
     rapport with him. For example, during PolOff's last meeting, Shaik
     admitted he was looking forward to the birth of his first child (whom he
     jokingly referred to as \"the little dictator\"), and even sent PolOff an
     SMS when his wife went into labor. However, during this meeting (which
     he called), he refused to be drawn into any personal conversation.

     Instead, Shaik spent much of the hour and a half berating the United
     States in general (for \"never recognizing a bus when it hits us\"), but
     also the FBI and State Department in particular. He made a point of
     telling PolOff that \"he knows all about the FBI's role in selling South
     Africa the idea of a law-enforcement agency with no oversight\" i.e., the
     Scorpions), going so far as to name former NLEA officers. He implied the
     FBI purposefully sold South Africa an idea that the U.S. would never
     allow on its own soil. He also repeatedly criticized the recent trip by
     Assistant Secretary Frazer for coming to the continent to talk to
     leaders about Zimbabwe, calling U.S. officials \"stupid and arrogant.\"

     4. COMMENT. Shaik is right in pointing out that there are many in the
     Zuma camp who wish to take full revenge on Mbeki and end his tenure
     early. Shaik, more than anyone, likely personalizes the issue given the
     fact he blames the Scorpions for sending his brother to prison (not
     because he was guilty). However, it is unclear if the Zuma camp has
     reached a tipping point, especially within Mbeki's cabinet, which has
     remained virtually unchanged for his entire tenure.

     The Zuma camp has definitely gained a number of converts since Polokwane
     simply because people want to stay on during the next administration,
     but whether it is enough to oust Mbeki is unclear.

     5. COMMENT CONT'D. However, there are also advantages to allowing Mbeki
     to stay in power for his full term, a fact even Shaik has admitted in
     previous meetings. Mbeki has had better days politically, but the Zuma
     camp, for all its talk, is unlikely to come in and fix all of South
     Africa's problems overnight. Combating crime, solving South Africa's
     electricity shortages, increasing employment, improving service
     delivery, and convincing Zimbabwean President Mugabe to step down are
     not easy fixes. The fact is the longer Mbeki stays in power, the better
     Zuma will look -- at least in the short-term -- when elections come
     around next year.

     BOST
","2011-01-27 18:13:27",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5192411_re-wikileaks-south-africa-may-16-2008-.html","nhtaylor1998@yahoo.com","","mark.schroeder@stratfor.com",""
5206181,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
 CODE
","   It might sound strange, but some of the most radical deep ecology people
   actually believe that there are too many people on the earth and that
   radical steps must be taken to reduce the population and save the earth.
    This strain of deep ecology is a clear reflection of the way the movement
   was heavily influenced by people like Martin Heidegger who were also
   committed to Nazism. Yes, Nazis were radical environmentalists.....
   From: Marc Lanthemann <marc.lanthemann@stratfor.com>
   Organization: STRATFOR
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:08:31 -0600
   To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Jesus I spent a couple of hours researching these guys - weird is an
   understatement. Apparently they met yesterday a couple of blocks away from
   my house to consolidate their leadership, go through basic indoctrination
   and plan more events. As far as I can tell, the Austin chapter is not
   nearly as radical as the central Lierre Keith DGR whose website is a
   treasure trove of incitment to passive resistance, blowing up energy
   infra, basic counter intel and legal guidance.

   Their ideology seems to be a mix of hardcore environmentalism, anarchism,
   radical feminism and the general notion that we need to go back living
   sustainably like the american indians by blowing up every pipeline and
   cell tower on the planet. Unlike the central DGR, Austin DGR doesn't seem
   to have defined targets and goals (their meeting yesterday was a
   brainstorming session on what radical environmentalism means in Austin).

   just a few nice quotes from their central website:

   The task of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power
   with as much personal integrity as possible; it is to dismantle those
   systems.

   What would we do if Nazis had invaded, and they were vacuuming the oceans,
   scalping native forests, damming every river, changing the climate, and
   putting carcinogens into every mother's breast milk, and into the flesh of
   your children, your lover, your mother, into your own flesh? How much
   worse would the damage have to get? Would you resist? If there existed a
   resistance movement, would you join it?

   On 11/16/11 7:42 PM, Victoria Allen wrote:

     WHOA.
     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
     Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
     Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:38:01 -0600
     To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>
     ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
     Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
     CODE
     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.

 --
 Marc Lanthemann
 Watch Officer
 STRATFOR
 +1 609-865-5782
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-17 14:01:00",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5206181_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5211776,"Please Leave WikiLeaks featured
","   It's getting tons of freelist signups

   --
   Jenna Colley
   STRATFOR
   Director, Content Publishing
   C: 512-567-1020
   F: 512-744-4334
   jenna.colley@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-12-08 20:18:24",1,"2012-03-01 23:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5211776_please-leave-wikileaks-featured-.html","jenna.colley@stratfor.com","","writers@stratfor.com",""
5225759,"[alpha] Afghanistan
","   CN65 sent me this video.  He is mates with Craig Coleman in the video.  I
   am sending it along in case there may be any questions for Craig.  My
   source can speak with him directly if so and Craig seems open to
   discussion.ia'; 'Risk Reduction Services Australia'; 'Ash Cooper'; 'Allan
   Mansell'; 'Bill Ochee'; 'Steve Salmon'; 'George Friend'; 'George Friend'

     Subject: SBS Dateline
      
     All,
      
     I was interviewed on SBS Dateline last night along with Jim Molan. My
     point of view was that Afghanistan is going to fail because the emphasis
     is just on military and not on the important factors that are fuelling
     the insurgency.
      
     The link is below:
      
     http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/watch/id/601300/n/The-Taliban-Strikes-Back
      
     Please feel free to provide feedback and criticism to me and also as you
     wish. The gloves are off and now I am going to speak out about this
     ridiculous ongoing situation. The further it is distributed the more
     opportunity I will get to speak my mind publicly and raise awareness of
     the real situation and the impending failure.
      
","2011-08-10 12:49:52",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5225759_-alpha-afghanistan-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5231832,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5231832_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5262440,"Re: ANALYSIS FOR EDIT - RUSSIA/GREECE/GERMANY/EUROZONE - Greece:
 Why	Privatization Matters?
","   When a change in phrasing is made, that change needs to be highlighted. It
   may seem innocent to change PASOK had been in power in Greece for 20 years
   since 1974. into PASOK had led the country for 20 years beginning in 1974,
   but it is not.

   On 6/9/11 11:44 AM, Ryan Bridges wrote:

     Title: Opportunities for Russia and China in Greek Privatization

      

     Teaser: Athens' privatization drive, while threatening Prime Minister
     George Papandreou's leadership of his party, is a chance for Russia and
     China to take over important Greek transportation and energy
     infrastructure.

      

     Summary: Greece's eurozone partners are demanding that Athens accelerate
     sales of public assets and allow an independent agency, likely to be
     heavily influenced by Germany, to lead the privatization drive. There is
     a risk that Greece's ruling PASOK party could rebel against Prime
     Minister George Papandreou and eurozone austerity measures. But the more
     significant long-term issue is that Russia and China could use the
     privatization to snatch up strategic Greek assets.

      

      

     Greece's privatization efforts have become central for the new
     approximately 65 billion to 70 billion euro ($94 billion to $101
     billion) bailout package being finalized by eurozone member states and
     expected to be approved by the June 20 eurozone finance ministers'
     meeting. As the chief condition of the new bailout plan, Greece's
     eurozone partners are demanding that Athens speed up its sale of
     publicly held assets and shift the responsibility of privatization from
     the government to an independent agency that would, sources tell
     STRATFOR, have considerable input from foreign governments. In other
     words, Greece needs to sell about 50 billion euros worth of public
     assets by 2015 and on terms that satisfy Germany and other eurozone
     countries, regardless of the preferences of the Greek state that owns
     the assets or the Greek public that depends on them for employment.

      

      

     Greek privatization is a divisive issue that is threatening Prime
     Minister George Papandreou's hold on his party. There is a danger that
     the ruling PASOK party could revolt against Papandreou and eurozone
     austerity measures, putting Europe's bailout efforts into question and
     sending the sovereign debt crisis spiraling toward Portugal and Spain.
     The long-term and geopolitical issue, however, is the effect that such
     wide-scale privatization will have on strategic Greek assets, such as
     ports and pipelines, which could find interested investors in Russia and
     China, giving these powers a back door into Europe's transportation and
     energy infrastructure. [Great summary]

      

      

     Pain of Privatization

      

      

     The new eurozone bailout plan has caused a political crisis in Greece.
     The planned privatization of state enterprises means further layoffs of
     public sector workers, and the Greek unemployment rate is already at
     16.2 percent, more than 3 percent higher than a year ago. Employees of
     Greek power utility PPC, telecommunication company OTE, and water
     utilities EYDAP and EYATH have called a 24-hour strike for June 9 to
     protest the privatization efforts, while the main private and public
     sector unions, GSEE and ADEDY, will organize a general strike in the
     country June 15.

      

      

     Privatization, under most conditions, is painful. Inefficiencies built
     into public companies due to political logic -- such as redundant
     employment, subsidized pricing of goods and services, and wage inflation
     -- are unraveled, to the consternation of a large segment of the
     population. Furthermore, management positions in publicly held utilities
     and businesses are often lucrative posts, which political leaders use to
     reward party loyalists, or are even directly funded from the revenue of
     the public companies. Thus, the workers facing unemployment and the
     citizens protesting higher prices for goods and services are not alone
     in resisting privatization; political elites, who are left without
     important sources of economic revenue and patronage, also oppose it.
     This explains why, historically, successful and thorough privatization
     drives require a political outsider in the country to take control and
     use privatization to evict established and entrenched elites. This is
     why most successful and thorough privatization drives usually occur when
     a political outsider takes control of a country and uses privatization
     to evict established and entrenched elites from power. [We mean
     political outsider as in opposition, not foreign power, right?]

      

      

     Papandreou and his PASOK are most definitely not political outsiders.
     Although it was out of power for five years before defeating the
     center-right Neu Demokratia in 2009, PASOK had led the country for 20
     years beginning in 1974. Therefore, the greatest danger in terms of
     dissent to privatization is not from the mounting protests and strikes
     on the streets of Athens and other Greek cities, which are largely
     apolitical and offer no real alternative to the ruling party, but from
     Papandreou's own party. 

      

     The events of the next few weeks will be crucial for Papandreou's
     ability to retain control of his party. Because PASOK's popularity has
     taken a dive, early elections would not benefit its members. Our
     tentative forecast is therefore that Papandreou will be able to use the
     prospect of being voted out of office to scare dissenting members of
     parliament into supporting the new austerity measures. This depends on a
     number of factors, including that street protests do not become violent
     or out of control, which we do not foresee happening.

     INSERT TABLE: Selected Greek Privatization Efforts

      

     Opportunities in Privatization

      

     A painful privatization drive for Greece, however, presents
     opportunities for others to gain assets at potentially below market
     value. German companies are taking interest in a number of Greek assets,
     which is certain to frustrate Greeks, who see the forced privatization
     drive as a loss of sovereignty and an insidious move by Berlin to
     acquire control of potentially lucrative companies on the cheap. On June
     6, as the new bailout agreement was being negotiated, Germany's Deutsche
     Telekom acquired a 10 percent stake in Hellenic Telecommunications (OTE)
     for around 400 million euros, giving German firms a 40 percent stake
     plus one share in OTE [I assume we mean various German companies and not
     the German government]. Athens is looking to sell another 6 percent of
     OTE to Deutsche Telekom, but the German telecommunication company has
     said it would invest further only if given full control over OTE's labor
     policies.

      

      

     Russian and Chinese companies also are looking to use Greek
     privatization for geopolitical gain. For China, Greece is an interesting
     strategic entry point into the Central and Eastern European emerging
     markets. China would use the Greek ports of Piraeus and Thessaloniki to
     bring its goods to the Balkans, former Soviet countries like Ukraine and
     Belarus, and Central European EU states like Hungary, Slovakia and
     Poland. Beijing's logic is that it could expand its trade in
     post-Communist Central and Eastern European countries where, considering
     the region's generally lower income, the price point for Chinese exports
     would be highly competitive. China Ocean Shipping Co. (COSCO) made an
     investment in Piraeus in June 2010, leasing two container terminals for
     35 years at a price of around $5 billion. COSCO's interest also was
     piqued when the Greek government announced plans to privatize its entire
     75 percent stake in the Piraeus port authority, and the Chinese company
     wants to expand its investment both there and in Thessaloniki. 

      

     Russia is interested in using Greece to block a key European alternative
     route for natural gas supplies. The European Union, which currently gets
     [insert figure] percent of its natural gas from Russia, is looking for
     alternatives to Russian-dominated natural gas transportation pipelines.
     At the forefront of the union's plans is the \"southern gas corridor,\"
     which is essentially an amalgamation of several different projects that
     would bring Azerbaijani and potentially Central Asian or Middle Eastern
     natural gas into Europe via Turkey. Greece is an important component of
     this plan since it rests on one route by which natural gas piped through
     Turkey would enter the European Union -- the other option would be to
     fork north through Bulgaria and Romania. From Greece, any proposed
     natural gas pipelines would have to make the short jump across the
     Strait of Otranto to Italy. [Even though it would be longer, would it be
     cheaper to go through Bulgaria/Romania since you don't have to build
     underwater?]

     INSERT: Map of Southern Corridor Options

      

     There are currently a number of proposed pipeline projects that would
     constitute the EU southern gas corridor, of which three are central. The
     Nabucco pipeline is supposed to take the northern route from Turkey to
     Austria via the Balkan EU member states. Two other pipelines would take
     the southerly route from Turkey into Greece -- the proposed
     Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) and the Interconnection
     Turkey-Greece-Italy (ITGI), of which the planned Poseidon offshore
     pipeline is the underwater part from Greece to Italy.

      

     The Greek government is directly involved in the ITGI project through
     its ownership of the Greek public natural gas company DEPA, which is
     collaborating with Italy's privately held natural gas company Edison.
     The key for Russia, specifically natural gas giant Gazprom, is blocking 
     [Changed because we say later that it wants to put Russian gas through
     the pipeline, not kill it] lies in this particular southern corridor
     project [Why not TAP too? Would the southern corridor fall apart if it
     lost one of the three?]. The offered proposed privatization of DEPA is
     therefore an interesting opportunity for the Kremlin. Gazprom has had
     its eyes on ITGI for years, negotiating with DEPA in 2010 to potentially
     gain an ownership stake in the project. The deal seems to have fallen
     through, with Gazprom now concentrating on the Greek plan to privatize
     DEPA -- as much as 32 percent may be up for sale. This would give Moscow
     a seat at the table when decisions are made about whose natural gas ITGI
     carries, turning ITGI from an alternative to Russian natural gas to an
     enabler of continued Gazprom dominance of Europe's natural gas market.

      

     The key question is whether Greece's eurozone neighbors will try to
     prevent China and Russia from gaining access to these geopolitically
     strategic assets. It is assumed that the new privatization agency,
     independent from Athens, would have major German influence since Berlin
     is contributing the most cash for the Greek bailouts. As such, would
     Berlin look to ensure that Athens' strategic assets are purchased by
     fellow eurozone member states and not by Russia and China? The answer is
     most likely no. Germany, an exporter of high-end, capital-intensive
     goods, does not consider China's low-cost goods export competition,
     which means there is no reason for Berlin to prevent Beijing's access to
     Eastern and Central European markets. Second, Germany has a budding
     political relationship with Russia, including a solid relationship
     between Germany's E.ON Ruhrgas and Gazprom. It therefore is unlikely
     that Berlin will do much to block Gazprom's designs in Greece either
     [With its plans to shut down all those nuclear power plants, Germany's
     big energy concern is probably making sure there's more natural gas
     flowing in, right? It wouldn't really care where it comes from so long
     as it comes]. Considering that Germany is expected to have the greatest
     influence in decisions made by the new privatization agency -- and that
     Berlin's interest is ultimately to get Athens to raise as much cash as
     possible -- we do not foresee Berlin standing in the way of Russia and
     China in Greece.

      

 --
 Marko Papic
 Senior Analyst
 STRATFOR
 + 1-512-744-4094 (O)
 + 1-512-905-3091 (C)
 221 W. 6th St, Ste. 400
 Austin, TX 78701 - USA
 www.stratfor.com
 @marko_papic
","2011-06-10 15:13:18",1,"2012-03-02 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5262440_re-analysis-for-edit-russia-greece-germany-eurozone-greece.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","","writers@stratfor.com,ryan.bridges@stratfor.com",""
5280688,"Re: Fwd: RE: Pls fwd to Fred
","   Do we trust everyone on the list enough to reveal the source's physical
   location?  I was going to remove it, just in case...

   On 9/14/11 9:19 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

     Go, we may want to find that house; note grid coordinates.  I would post
     in context to the threat. 

     On 9/14/2011 8:16 AM, Anya Alfano wrote:

       Okay to post?

       On 9/14/11 9:15 AM, Fred Burton wrote:

         Good skinny.  This is what is defined as a credible source.  Not
         some windbag Paki academic belching and passing gas. 

         -------- Original Message --------

         Subject: RE: Pls fwd to Fred                         
            Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 09:12:30 -0400             
            From: James F. Smith <jamie@scginternational.com> 
              To: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>           

         Completely.

         Last week of August I was at a house here (32DEG 52.552'N / 13DEG
         8.512'E) owned by a man last name Hakin (like the MOD Hakin but not
         the same man).

         After midnight we recv'd ph call from anonymous caller telling him
         to get ready for a vehicle to come by to pick him up and take him to
         a pos so he could pickup some money.

         We then called a contact at MOD and ran it by them, they knew of the
         ruse somehow and said it was a trap aimed at the real Hakin (MOD
         head) and that we should vacate asap.

         We grabbed weapons, go-bag and moved out of the house on foot down
         the streets (can't drive this area due to roadblocks at every
         corner) to a safe(r) house. I happened to be solo that night. I
         moved him to the top of the house (3rd deck), barricaded the door on
         ground and the access to the roof, then put him down and maintained
         overwatch of the street below from the roof til dawn.

         This happens frequently here. Definite threat to NTC and lower level
         brigade leadership as well.

          

         From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
         Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 9:06 AM
         To: James F. Smith
         Subject: Re: Pls fwd to Fred

          

         Credible in your eyes? 

         On 9/14/2011 8:02 AM, James F. Smith wrote:

         Rgr//thank you.

          

         From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
         Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:49 AM
         To: James F. Smith
         Subject: Re: Pls fwd to Fred

          

         Libyan source warns of possible assassination operations against NTC
         members

         Excerpt from report by Saudi-owned leading pan-Arab daily Al-Sharq
         al-Awsat website on 14 September

         [Report by Khalid Mahmud in Cairo: \"Libya: Revolutionaries'
         Disagreements Impede Search for Fugitive Al-Qadhafi\"]

         The efforts to arrest the fugitive Libyan Colonel Mu'ammar
         al-Qadhafi, who is still somewhere unknown inside Libyan
         territories, receded relatively yesterday as the revolutionaries and
         the Transitional National Council [NTC] became preoccupied with
         disagreements that escalated and surfaced for the first time with
         Islamic political groups that opened fire early at the NTC at an
         unexpected end of the honeymoon which did not last long between the
         two sides.

         While NTC Chairman Counsellor Mustafa Abd-al-Jalil was issuing from
         Martyrs Square in the Libyan capital Tripoli messages to assure the
         Western coalition backing the revolutionaries that he would not
         allow any extremist ideology, whether from the right or the left,
         Ali al-Salabi, the prominent leader in the Muslim Brotherhood [MB]
         group, came out with unprecedented violent and sharp criticisms of
         Dr Mahmud Jibril, chairman of the NTC's Executive Bureau, which
         reached the point of demanding his resignation.

         These developments prompted a high-level official in the NTC to warn
         of possible assassinations against some NTC members, particularly in
         view of the proliferation of weapons all over the country. This
         official, who asked to remain unnamed, said by telephone from
         Tripoli \"we fear that the political clash will lead to a military
         one. There are fears of assassination operations like that of martyr
         Major General Abd-al-Fattah Yunus\", the former commander of the
         revolutionaries forces who was assassinated in mysterious
         circumstances by gunmen believed to be Islamists in Benghazi at the
         end of July. [Passage omitted on Abd-al-Jalil's speech, Al-Salabi's
         statements]

         In view of this unexpected attack by Al-Salabi, sources close to
         Jibril disclosed to Al-Sharq al-Awsat that Jibril refused to give
         the MB more than one ministerial portfolio in the government he
         intends to form from about 20 ministers. The sources said the MB
         sought in the past to persuade Jibril to give it five ministerial
         portfolios, among them the awqaf, information, and interior
         ministries, but he refused from the premise that this would put the
         country within the framework of a quota government and not a
         government of technocrats that carries out its responsibilities
         during the transitional period of 18 months.

         Libyan activists and politicians told Al-Sharq al-Awsat yesterday
         that they called for a march that was supposed to be staged last
         night from outside Al-Mahari Hotel in Tripoli to denounce
         Al-Salabi's statements as part of similar demonstrations aimed at
         stressing that there is a public opinion against such views.

         A NTC official told Al-Sharq al-Awsat the NTC is being subjected to
         what he called \"a campaign of distortion\" by some political trends
         which believe it threatens their interests and endeavours to occupy
         leading posts in the next government. The official, who asked to
         remain unnamed, added \"this is an overt and public blackmail
         campaign. We will not allow the NTC and its government to be dragged
         to these dirty tricks. We still have before us momentous and very
         grave tasks and what is happening is mere political drivel whose
         time has not yet come.\"

         Al-Sharq al-Awsat has learned that Dr Jibril is coming under
         political pressures from the armed groups and revolutionaries to
         give them ministerial posts too. An official connected to the
         upcoming government told this newspaper: \"Yes, he (Jibril) is coming
         under pressures but refuses to yield to them. His task as he sees it
         is to form a national government based on the principle of
         competence and professionalism before any other considerations.\"

         But a NTC member said the formation of the new government might not
         be easy because it would not have everybody's support and pointed
         out that all the political forces are now aspiring to play a public
         political role and obtain the price for their participation in or
         backing for the Libyan people's uprising against Al-Qadhafi.

         Amidst these political disagreements which prove that the honeymoon
         between the Islamists and NTC has ended prematurely, the efforts to
         locate the whereabouts of the fugitive Col. Al-Qadhafi, his sons,
         and his senior military and security aides have slowed down at a
         time when the revolutionaries are fighting fierce battles with the
         colonel's remnant forces to retake his last strongholds in Sirte and
         Bani Walid.

         A security official in the special unit hunting Al-Qadhafi said the
         efforts exerted to pinpoint his whereabouts since his escape from
         Tripoli on 21 August were mostly unsuccessful. Speaking by telephone
         from Tripoli on condition of remaining anonymous, the official added
         \"we have conflicting information. No one has anything definite about
         his (Al-Qadhafi's) hideout. We are still hoping to reach him as
         quickly as possible.\" He pointed out that the reason for the delay
         in forming the new government under Dr Jibril has to do with
         Al-Qadhafi's arrest or killing, adding \"we want the announcement of
         the government to be done with the announcement with the regime's
         official and final downfall and this cannot be done if we do not
         arrest Al-Qadhafi or kill him if he refused to surrender.\"

         In the field, the revolutionaries appeared yesterday to be on the
         verge of attacking the city of Bani Walid where forces loyal to
         Al-Qadhafi are entrenched amidst the large-scale exodus of the
         city's citizens who described the living conditions inside it as
         miserable because of the communications and electricity stoppages.
         The revolutionaries stopped their advance to resolve the city's fate
         for some time so as to enable these citizens to escape somewhere far
         from the fighting while Al-Qadhafi's forces reinforced their
         military positions inside the city and made rooftops the pads for
         missile launchers, according to remarks by military sources to the
         revolutionaries' \"Libya al-Ahrar\" channel.

         Violent clashes erupted between the revolutionaries and the
         regiments in the streets of Sirte, Al-Qadhafi's birthplace, as
         reports circulated that his son Al-Mu'tasim, who is the national
         security adviser, is in the city. The revolutionaries succeeded in
         forcing Al-Qadhafi's forces to retreat towards Harawah which is
         situated 70 km east of Sirte before advancing for 50 km from the
         west to announce also that they had reached the outskirts of Brak
         al-Shati which is only 70 km from Sabha.

         Source: Al-Sharq al-Awsat website, London, in Arabic 14 Sep 11

         BBC Mon ME1 MEPol vs

         On 9/12/2011 1:51 PM, James F. Smith wrote:

 No, mainly tac ground training and psd for key figures.

  

 Sent from my iPhone

  

 On Sep 12, 2011, at 14:28, \"Fred Burton\" <burton@stratfor.com<mailto:burton@stratfor.com>> wrote:

  

 Tactical and intel support too?

  

 On 9/12/2011 10:49 AM, James F. Smith wrote:

  

 Certainly are. They need it. At the request of a usg committee and the rebs. Been there since no-fly.

 JS

 Sent by mobile device

  

 ________________________________

 From: Fred Burton <<mailto:burton@stratfor.com>burton@stratfor.com<mailto:burton@stratfor.com>>

 To: James F. Smith

 Sent: Mon Sep 12 11:21:44 2011

 Subject: Re: Fwd: Fwd: Pls fwd to Fred

 Interesting.  You guys lending the opposition a hand?  I would hope so.

  

 On 9/12/2011 9:59 AM, James F. Smith wrote:

  

 I just got back and am heading back either this week or next. Still working logs on travel.

 JS

 Sent by mobile device

  

 ________________________________

 From: Fred Burton <<mailto:burton@stratfor.com>burton@stratfor.com<mailto:burton@stratfor.com>>

 To: James F. Smith

 Sent: Mon Sep 12 10:52:34 2011

 Subject: Fwd: Fwd: Pls fwd to Fred

 Hello James,   Very interesting and thorough report.   Are you heading into Libya?   Thanks, Fred

  

 ---

  

 Fred,

  

 I tried sending this via Yahoo, but it was kicked back by your servers.

 Let me know if you get this. I'm going back to the AO next week.

 Any RFI's just let me know.

 Yes, we have a stratfor acct under this email address.

  

 James Smith

 SCG, LLC

 www.scginternational.com<http://www.scginternational.com/>

 jamie@scginternational.com<mailto:jamie@scginternational.com>

 +1 757 469 9512 m

 +1 757 390 3356 o

 +1 703 995 4550 f

 1369 Laskin Road, Suite 5

 Virginia Beach, Virginia 23451, USA

  

 U.S. Veteran Owned & Operated

 The information in this communication and any attachments herein are confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it. This email may also contain information in reference to certain commodities that are not able to be exported without a valid license issued by the U.S. Department of State - Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, as prescribed in the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Title 22, Code of Federal Regulation, Parts 120-130. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in reliance of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

  
","2011-09-14 15:23:53",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5280688_re-fwd-re-pls-fwd-to-fred-.html","Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com","","burton@stratfor.com,korena.zucha@stratfor.com",""
5282628,"Re: Public Policy Question for Coca-Cola
","   Interesting, thanks Fred.

   Fred Burton wrote:

     The FBI has a classified investigation on PETA operatives. I'll see what
     I can uncover.

     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"scott stewart\"
     Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 11:01:30 -0400
     To: 'bart mongoven'<bart.mongoven@stratfor.com>
     Subject: RE: Public Policy Question for Coca-Cola
     Yeah, I'm not sure how that works now either.  Bart, is this something
     you guys can still help with?
      
      
      
      
      

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Anya Alfano [mailto:anya.alfano@stratfor.com]
     Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 10:56 AM
     To: Fred Burton; scott stewart
     Subject: Public Policy Question for Coca-Cola
     Coca-Cola just sent me a long list of questions regarding PETA/Animal
     Activism and the upcoming Olympics in Vancouver--I've pasted the
     questions below.  I'm not entirely clear on how much we can task the
     public policy group at this point--is there any guidance you can give me
     on that front?  Coke has asked for a short teleconference with one of
     our analysts to discuss this issue--is that something I could ask Kathy,
     Bart or Joe to do, or would that be off the table at this point?  Stick,
     are these questions something that you have a handle on, if we aren't
     able to get info from the policy folks? 

     Any thoughts or guidance would be helpful. Thanks, Anya

     Questions---
     -- How many PETA supporters are there in Canada?
     -- How many of these are inclined toward activism?
     -- To what extent will US-based PETA supporters travel to Canada to
     support activism?
     -- What is PETA's methodology for planning and executing activism?
      (Understanding this better would certainly help us to recognize
     indicators should they appear.)
     -- To what extent is PETA in Canada linked to PETA in the US or
     elsewhere?
     -- To what extent are the actions of PETA in one country controlled by
     an oversight board/governing body?
     -- To what extent could non-PETA hangers-on (such as anarchists or ALF
     supporters) get involved in any protest activity?
","2009-06-02 17:21:18",1,"2012-02-27 12:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5282628_re-public-policy-question-for-coca-cola-.html","Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com","","burton@stratfor.com,scott.stewart@stratfor.com,bart.mongoven@stratfor.com,burtonfb@att.blackberry.net",""
5284848,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-MEXICO-Anonymous kidnapping-US711
","   We discussed the Anonymous case with our hacker buddies yesterday.  They
   were surprised that the FBI hasn't taken advantage of this situation to
   generate chaos within the cartel community by using the Anonymous moniker
   to start to publish cartel leadership info. 

   On 11/10/11 1:27 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:

     Source Code: US711
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR Security source
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: US Law enforcement Agent with Border Liaison
     responsibilities
     SOURCE  RELIABILITY: A
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: D (source isn't able to confirm either way but this is
     his take)
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

     I have just one question about this anonymous hacker being kidnapped
     article down below.  If the hacker was anonymous then how could he/she
     be kidnapped as no one would know who he/she was, because he/she was
     anonymous.  If he/she was kidnapped then he/she was not anonymous,
     because someone knew who he/she was to kidnap him/her in the first
     place.  It is anonymous who is announcing the release of this kidnapped
     victim and not the Zetas.  I do not think the Zetas would release a
     kidnapping victim anyway not under such threats.  If they did they
     already know who anonymous is as I am certain they would have
     interrogated the anonymous victim before letting him/her go.  This is
     why I do not even believe there was a kidnapping in the first place.  If
     the Zetas can find out who anonymous is so can the Mexican and U.S.
     Governments.  The Zetas are not that good above what the U.S. and
     Mexican Governments can do.  Yep I think the kidnapping was a hoax.

     Mexican Drug Cartel Frees Kidnapped Anonymous Hacker
     http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/middle/2011/10/05/169157-anonymous.jpg
     November 10, 2011 10:55 AM EST

     Anonymous Takes On Mexican Drug Cartel After Kidnapping of Hacker

     The unidentified hacker, who was kidnapped by the Zetas in the eastern
     Mexican port of Veracruz, was freed before the Nov. 5 deadline set by
     Anonymous, the Mexican TV station Televisa reported Wednesday. An
     Anonymous member using the nickname @anohispano announced the release of
     the kidnapped hacker on Twitter.

     Mexican authorities, who have no verification of the kidnapping, had no
     comment.

     The Anonymous in Mexico announced on a YouTube video last month its
     demand that Zetas release the kidnapped member warning that failing to
     do so will force hackers to reveal online the names of \"taxi drivers,
     journalists and police officers\" serving the violent drug trafficking
     group known for displaying the bodies of its executed victims in public.

     In the \"Anonymous Veracruz\" video, which the U.S. security consultancy
     Stratfor released, according to Courier Mail, a hacker wearing the mask
     of Guy Fawkes, spoke in Spanish threatening retaliation against the
     Zetas if the kidnapped hacker is not released.

     Stratfor warned on Oct. 28 that \"loss of life will be a certain
     consequence if Anonymous releases the identities of individuals
     cooperating with cartels,\" according to the blog \"eats shoots n' leaves
     by Richard Brenneman citing a report from The Guardians.

     Stratfor said the drug trafficking gang had hired security experts to
     track down the hackers and kidnap, hurt or kill them.

     The Guardians report also said that some Anonymous members disagree with
     the plan to expose collaborators of the Zetas while others claim that
     the kidnapping was a hoax.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 STRATFOR
 w: 512-744-4324
 c: 512-422-9335
 richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com
","2011-11-11 13:59:34",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5284848_re-alpha-insight-mexico-anonymous-kidnapping-us711-.html","richmond@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5287911,"Re: Fw: CIA spies outed in Lebanon
","   Some of this feels like disinfo.  If the CIA lost a few people in Beirut,
   it would be reasonable for them to send a few \"current and former US
   Officials\" to the AP to \"leak\" a story that the all US coverage of Hez has
   been \"wiped out\" -- best way to stop the search for more informants. 

   On 11/21/11 10:03 AM, burton@stratfor.com wrote:

     Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Goldman, Adam\" <agoldman@ap.org>
     Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:56:44 -0600 (CST)
     To: Fred Burton<burton@stratfor.com>
     Subject: RE: CIA spies outed in Lebanon

     Thanks! Been working on this for a while. It's bad. CIA's Hezbollah
     coverage has been wiped out.

      

     From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
     Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 8:05 AM
     To: Goldman, Adam
     Subject: Fwd: CIA spies outed in Lebanon

      

     Great work Adam! 

     AP Exclusive: Spies Outed, CIA Suffers In Lebanon

     http://www.salon.com/2011/11/21/ap_exclusive_spies_outed_cia_suffers_in_lebanon_2/

     Monday, Nov 21, 2011 10:17 AM 11:15:26 GMT+0200

     By Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press

     WASHINGTON (AP) - The CIA's operations in Lebanon have been badly
     damaged after Hezbollah identified and captured a number of U.S. spies
     recently, current and former U.S. officials told The Associated Press.
     The intelligence debacle is particularly troubling because the CIA saw
     it coming.

     Hezbollah's longtime leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, boasted on
     television in June that he had rooted out at least two CIA spies who had
     infiltrated the ranks of Hezbollah, which the U.S. considers a terrorist
     group closely allied with Iran. Though the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon
     officially denied the accusation, current and former officials concede
     that it happened and the damage has spread even further.

     In recent months, CIA officials have secretly been scrambling to protect
     their remaining spies - foreign assets or agents working for the agency
     - before Hezbollah can find them.

     To be sure, some deaths are to be expected in shadowy spy wars. It's an
     extremely risky business and people get killed. But the damage to the
     agency's spy network in Lebanon has been greater than usual, several
     former and current U.S. officials said, speaking on condition of
     anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about
     security matters.

     The Lebanon crisis is the latest mishap involving CIA
     counterintelligence, the undermining or manipulating of the enemy's
     ability to gather information. Former CIA officials have said that
     once-essential skill has been eroded as the agency shifted from
     outmaneuvering rival spy agencies to fighting terrorists. In the rush
     for immediate results, former officers say, tradecraft has suffered.

     The most recent high-profile example was the suicide bomber who posed as
     an informant and killed seven CIA employees and wounded six others in
     Khost, Afghanistan in December 2009.

     Last year, then-CIA director Leon Panetta said the agency had to
     maintain \"a greater awareness of counterintelligence.\" But eight months
     later, Nasrallah let the world know he had bested the CIA, demonstrating
     that the agency still struggles with this critical aspect of spying and
     sending a message to those who would betray Hezbollah.

     The CIA was well aware the spies were vulnerable in Lebanon. CIA
     officials were warned, including the chief of the unit that supervises
     Hezbollah operations from CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., and the head
     of counterintelligence. It remains unclear whether anyone has been or
     will be held accountable in the wake of this counterintelligence
     disaster or whether the incident will affect the CIA's ability to
     recruit assets in Lebanon.

     In response to AP's questions about what happened in Lebanon, a U.S.
     official said Hezbollah is recognized as a complicated enemy responsible
     for killing more Americans than any other terrorist group before
     September 2001. The agency does not underestimate the organization, the
     official said.

     The CIA's toughest adversaries, like Hezbollah and Iran, have for years
     been improving their ability to hunt spies, relying on patience and
     guile to exploit counterintelligence holes.

     In 2007, for instance, when Ali-Reza Asgari, a brigadier general in the
     Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps of Iran, disappeared in Turkey, it
     was assumed that he was either killed or defected. In response, the
     Iranian government began a painstaking review of foreign travel by its
     citizens, particularly to places like Turkey where Iranians don't need a
     visa and could meet with foreign intelligence services.

     It didn't take long, a Western intelligence official told the AP, before
     the U.S., Britain and Israel began losing contact with some of their
     Iranian spies.

     The State Department last year described Hezbollah as \"the most
     technically capable terrorist group in the world,\" and the Defense
     Department estimates it receives between $100 million and $200 million
     per year in funding from Iran.

     Backed by Iran, Hezbollah has built a professional counterintelligence
     apparatus that Nasrallah - whom the U.S. government designated an
     international terrorist a decade ago - proudly describes as the \"spy
     combat unit.\" U.S. intelligence officials believe the unit, which is
     considered formidable and ruthless, went operational in about 2004.

     Using the latest commercial software, Nasrallah's spy-hunters unit began
     methodically searching for spies in Hezbollah's midst. To find them,
     U.S. officials said, Hezbollah examined cellphone data looking for
     anomalies. The analysis identified cellphones that, for instance, were
     used rarely or always from specific locations and only for a short
     period of time. Then it came down to old-fashioned, shoe-leather
     detective work: Who in that area had information that might be worth
     selling to the enemy?

     The effort took years but eventually Hezbollah, and later the Lebanese
     government, began making arrests. By one estimate, 100 Israeli assets
     were apprehended as the news made headlines across the region in 2009.
     Some of those suspected Israeli spies worked for telecommunications
     companies and served in the military.

     Back at CIA headquarters, the arrests alarmed senior officials. The
     agency prepared a study on its own vulnerabilities, U.S. officials said,
     and the results proved to be prescient.

     The analysis concluded that the CIA was susceptible to the same analysis
     that had compromised the Israelis, the officials said.

     CIA managers were instructed to be extra careful about handling sources
     in Lebanon. A U.S. official said recommendations were issued to counter
     the potential problem.

     But it's unclear what preventive measures were taken by the Hezbollah
     unit chief or the officer in charge of the Beirut station. Former
     officials say the Hezbollah unit chief is no stranger to the necessity
     of counterintelligence and knew the risks. The unit chief has worked
     overseas in hostile environments like Afghanistan and played an
     important role in the capture of a top terrorist while stationed in the
     Persian Gulf region after the attacks of 9/11.

     \"We've lost a lot of people in Beirut over the years, so everyone should
     know the drill,\" said a former Middle East case officer familiar with
     the situation.

     But whatever actions the CIA took, they were not enough. Like the
     Israelis, bad tradecraft doomed these CIA assets and the agency
     ultimately failed to protect them, an official said. In some instances,
     CIA officers fell into predictable patterns when meeting their sources,
     the official said.

     This allowed Hezbollah to identify assets and case officers and unravel
     at least part of the CIA's spy network in Lebanon. There was also a
     reluctance to share cases and some files were put in \"restricted
     handling.\" The designation severely limits the number of people who know
     the identity of the source but also reduces the number of experts who
     could spot problems that might lead to their discovery, officials said.

     Nasrallah's televised announcement in June was followed by
     finger-pointing among departments inside the CIA as the spy agency tried
     figure out what went wrong and contain the damage.

     The fate of these CIA assets is unknown. Hezbollah treats spies
     differently, said Matthew Levitt, a counterterrorism and intelligence
     expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies who's writing a
     book about the terrorist organization

     \"It all depends on who these guys were and what they have to say,\"
     Levitt said. \"Hezbollah has disappeared people before. Others they have
     kept around.\"

     Who's responsible for the mess in Lebanon? It's not clear. The chief of
     Hezbollah operations at CIA headquarters continues to run the unit that
     also focuses on Iranians and Palestinians. The CIA's top
     counterintelligence officer, who was one of the most senior women in the
     clandestine service, recently retired after approximately five years in
     the job. She is credited with some important cases, including the recent
     arrests of Russian spies who had been living in the U.S. for years.

     Officials said the woman was succeeded by a more experienced operations
     officer. That officer has held important posts in Moscow, Southeast
     Asia, Europe and the Balkans, important frontlines of the agency's spy
     wars with foreign intelligence services and terrorist organizations.

     The information contained in this communication is intended for the use
     of the designated recipients named above. If the reader of this
     communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
     that you have received this communication in error, and that any review,
     dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
     prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
     notify The Associated Press immediately by telephone at +1-212-621-1898
     and delete this email. Thank you.
     [IP_US_DISC]msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438f0cf467d9a4938

 --
 Anya Alfano
 Briefer
 STRATFOR
 T: 1.415.404.7344 | M: 221.77.816.4937
 www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-11-21 16:10:50",1,"2012-02-29 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5287911_re-fw-cia-spies-outed-in-lebanon-.html","Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com","","burton@stratfor.com,alfano@stratfor.com,korena.zucha@stratfor.com",""
5288871,"Fwd: [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] RE: Taking Stock of WikiLeaks
","   -------- Original Message --------

    Subject: [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] RE: Taking Stock of         
             WikiLeaks                                                        
       Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 10:30:13 -0600 (CST)                            
       From: jackk@chicagobancorp.com                                         
   Reply-To: Responses List <responses@stratfor.com>, Analyst List            
             <analysts@stratfor.com>                                          
         To: responses@stratfor.com                                           

 Jack Kinsey sent a message using the contact form at 
 https://www.stratfor.com/contact.

 I recently read a NYTimes article which pointed out that many Afghan 
 informants were put at risk as they were named in the documents.  Here is a 
 quote from that article
 \"Steve Coll, an expert on the region and a former senior editor of The 
 Washington Post, said in a New Yorker podcast on Thursday, \"my reading of 
 the disclosure of these informants in the context of Taliban-menaced southern 
 Afghanistan is that people named in those documents have a reasonable belief 
 that they are going to get killed, or - actually the way it works with the 
 Taliban is, if they can't find you, they'll take your brother 
 instead.\"\"

 This doesn't quite square with your analysis to me.  Would greatly appreciate 
 your comments.

 However I always enjoy and appreciate your articles and they are always well 
 thought out and thought provoking.






 Source: 
 http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101213-taking-stock-wikileaks?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101214&utm_content=readmore&elq=61bd8106a2624b82ba536dba642ca476
","2010-12-15 17:36:59",1,"2012-03-01 23:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5288871_fwd-analytical-and-intelligence-comments-re-taking-stock-of.html","Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com","","fred.burton@stratfor.com",""
5305447,"Updated Sales Force Contacts
","14","2010-09-21 12:00:35",1,"2012-02-27 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5305447_updated-sales-force-contacts-.html","Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com","","zucha@stratfor.com,amy.fisher@stratfor.com","attach/171/171512_Sales Force Contacts.xls"
5306963,"Re: [alpha] MORE (2) - INSIGHT - PERU - PM Resignation,
	Replacement - PE 502
","   Do we think he'll do it?

   Sent from my iPhone
   On Dec 10, 2011, at 17:38, Paulo Gregoire <paulo.gregoire@stratfor.com>
   wrote:

     That is really interesting and it would mean a significant shift in
     HumalaA's administration.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Allison Fedirka\" <allison.fedirka@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2011 9:00:46 PM
     Subject: [alpha] MORE (2) - INSIGHT - PERU - PM
     Resignation,        Replacement - PE 502

     SOURCE CODE: PE 502
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR source in Peru
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Political insider with own consulting firm
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Allison
     In order to have a pact with Keiko, Humala ahs to pardon her father

     Para pactar con KF tiene que indultar a su padre

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Allison Fedirka\" <allison.fedirka@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2011 4:25:02 PM
     Subject: [alpha] MORE - INSIGHT - PERU - PM Resignation, Replacement -
     PE 502

     asked source why Lerner resigned given he at first had so much power. 
     Siomi is a nickname for Lerner

     SOURCE CODE: PE 502
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR source in Peru
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Political insider with own consulting firm
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Allison

     GOOGLE
     Lerner was very fragile and Humala, ten days ago, accused Lerner of
     lacking loyalty and the low intelectual capacity of the socialist
     ministers, who were friends of Siomi.  Humala has been negotiating with
     Keiko and Toledo. Yesterday Humala called for and wanted a pardon for
     those that did things in an armed conflict.  Siomi declined to do this
     and Humala asked Lerner to resign.
     The accused lack of loyalty applies to the socialist ministers, old
     friends of Siomi who are admirers of Fidel and extremely awkward. Mocha
     Garcia Naranjo, Roncagliolo, Eguiguren, Susana Baca, Caillaux, etc.
     The President has gotten himself in a lot of trouble due to his loose
     tongue
     ORIGINAL TEXT
     Lerner era muy fragil y Humala le reclamo hace diez dias la falta de
     lealtad y la baja capacidad intelectual de los ministros socialistas
     amigos de Siomi.  Ha estado negociando con Keiko y con Toledo.
     Ayer exigio referendodel indulto.  S se nego y le pidio renuncia
     La falta de lealtad reclamada es la de los ministros socialistas, viejos
     amigos de Siomi pero admiradores de Fidel y sumamente toropes.  Mocha
     Garcia Naranjo, Roncagliolo, Eguiguren, Susana Baca, Caillaux, etc.
     Han metido en muchos lios al Presidente por lengua suelta

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Allison Fedirka\" <allison.fedirka@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Alpha List\" <alpha@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2011 3:57:25 PM
     Subject: [alpha] HUMINT - PERU - PM Resignation, Replacement - PE 502

     Notes: my buddy here texted me funky message early today about a cabinet
     crisis later this PM.  I didn't sent in as insight (kicking myself now,
     lesson learned and not to be repeated) but did tell Paulo to keep an eye
     out for it just in case source was on to something.  Turns out this time
     he was

     SOURCE CODE: PE 502
     ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR source in Peru
     SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Political insider with own consulting firm
     PUBLICATION: Yes
     SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
     ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
     SPECIAL HANDLING: None
     SOURCE HANDLER: Allison

     GOOGLE
     Oscar Valdez is the Premier. One needs to see the new cabinet to see if
     it is allied with Fujimori or trying to recompose its alliance with
     Toledo. With both [parties] negotiations have been occurring since his
     [Humala] return from APEC.
     When the Premier resigns, all ministers are forced to resign. The
     Constitution establishes this obligation of the rest of the cabinet. The
     President has the authority to accept the resignation or not.

     ORIGINAL TEXT
     Oscar Valdez es el Premier.  Hay que ver el nuevo gabinete para ver si
     se alia a Fujimori o trata de recomponer su alianza con Toledo.  Con
     ambos ha estado negociando desde que volvio de APEC.
     Cuando renuncia el Premier, todos los ministros estan obligados a
     renunciar.  La Constitucion establece esa obligacion del resto del
     gabinete.  El Presidente tiene la facultad de aceptar la renuncia o no.

     --
     Allison Fedirka
     South America Correspondent
     STRATFOR
     US Cell: +1.512.496.3466 A| Brazil Cell: +55.11.9343.7752
     www.STRATFOR.com

     --
     Allison Fedirka
     South America Correspondent
     STRATFOR
     US Cell: +1.512.496.3466 A| Brazil Cell: +55.11.9343.7752
     www.STRATFOR.com
","2011-12-11 02:33:14",1,"2012-03-01 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5306963_re-alpha-more-2-insight-peru-pm-resignation-replacement-pe.html","hooper@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5308234,"Re: sourcing evaluations on Thurs/Fri
","41","2011-08-10 09:16:20",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5308234_re-sourcing-evaluations-on-thurs-fri-.html","colibasanu@stratfor.com","","mfriedman@stratfor.com,richmond@stratfor.com,anya.alfano@stratfor.com,eugene.chausovsky@stratfor.com,antonia.colibasanu@stratfor.com","attach/171/171609_Sources.docx"
5309160,"Re: FW: [alpha] TASKING - Source Lists
","I was hoping these would be okay without encryption, since they won't
include names, contact information or anything aside from code and
country/area of interest--I was assuming all of that already goes across
open channels--should it be encrypted anyway?  Jen doesn't have PGP
working on her new machine yet, but hopefully soon.

On 8/31/11 12:24 PM, scott stewart wrote:
> I usually had people send these to me via pgp file or spark/adium, which
> is encrypted.
>
> On 8/31/11 11:36 AM, \"Anya Alfano\" <Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com> wrote:
>
>> As part of the ongoing source evaluation process, we're finding that
>> many people on our team have sources in unexpected places. To help plan
>> the evaluations, we need each of you to send a preliminary list of your
>> contacts. This preliminary list doesn't need to be formal or in the new
>> spreadsheet format that Jen sent last week -- this is only a list of the
>> contacts that you have and where they're located to make certain that
>> we're not missing anyone and we can plan the reviews appropriately.
>>
>> For your preliminary list, please include:
>> --Source Code, if applicable. Please include all contacts that you'd
>> like to be considered, even if you haven't given the contact a codename.
>> If the contact does not have a codename, indicate that in your list.
>> --Country where the contact is located
>> --Country, region or area of interest (energy, economics, etc) that the
>> contact provides information about, if different than location
>> ***Please note -- this preliminary list does NOT need to include the
>> names of your contacts or any ranking information. This exercise is only
>> meant to ensure that we're aware of all the contacts that need to be
>> evaluated.
>>
>> Please put your list together in any format that you'd like and send to
>> me and Jen Richmond by COB, Friday September 2. Let me know if there are
>> any questions.
>> Thanks,
>> Anya
>>
>>
>> Anya Alfano
>> Briefer
>> STRATFOR
>> P: (703) 622-2888
>> anya.alfano@stratfor.com
>>
>
","2011-08-31 18:41:47",1,"2012-03-01 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5309160_re-fw-alpha-tasking-source-lists-.html","Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com","","stewart@stratfor.com,alfano@stratfor.com",""
5316058,"Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
	CODE
","   Agree
   Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: scott stewart <stewart@stratfor.com>
   Sender: alpha-bounces@stratfor.com
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:59:46 -0600 (CST)
   To: Alpha List<alpha@stratfor.com>; Korena Zucha<zucha@stratfor.com>
   ReplyTo: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano<anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   I'll bet cash they are connected to the Austin guys busted for the DNC
   plot plus some of the Austin Earth First jabronis. 
   From: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>
   Reply-To: Alpha List <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:51:44 -0600
   To: Korena Zucha <zucha@stratfor.com>
   Cc: Anya Alfano <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>, Alpha List
   <alpha@stratfor.com>
   Subject: Re: [alpha] INSIGHT-US-Occupy Austin and Deep Green Resistance-NO
   CODE
   Have we seen Deep Green Resistance carry-out acts of violence in the
   past? 

   On 11/16/2011 6:38 PM, Korena Zucha wrote:

     New source so don't yet have code or rankings. Source is a Texas DPS
     agent.

     There is a group you may be familiar with called Deep Green Resistance.
     They are led by (among a number of people) a eco-radical named Lierre
     Keith. She co-wrote the book, Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save
     the Planet. Very enlightening if you haven't read it. The movement
     advocates the collapse of industrial civilization to reach their eco
     goals. In the book, they advocate the use of guerrilla tactics to defeat
     current institutions when it comes to the environment. Whether anyone in
     the Fed or elsewhere classifies this group as eco-terror or not, I don't
     know, but they are nothing but and should be watched.

     http://deepgreenresistance.org/

     The local Austin chapter was part of the Occupy Austin crowd at city
     hall, however, things were not \"radical\" enough for them since they do
     not believe in working within the system. When I was working U/C on Nov.
     5th, some of my contacts told me that at the General Assembly on  Nov.
     4th, there was some conflict between regular Occupy people and Deep
     Green. Deep Green picked up all their stuff and left during the night.
     As best as anyone knows, they left and went to a state park off 71. The
     only place I know is McKinney Falls out in that area. They have started
     a group called the \"Phoenix Commune\" and intend to make their base out
     there, living off the land, so to speak. My source says they told him
     that as long as they move 10' everyday, the park officials can't make
     them leave. These Deep Green people worry me. When my Occupy people
     refer to them as \"stupid, crazy motherfuckers\", that bothers me, because
     these Occupy people will tolerate just about anything.

     I passed the info on to locals and since the park is way outside the
     complex, I haven't done any follow up other than to keep an eye and ear
     open for anything they may plan for the complex.

     Early on in the Occupy movement, they got the group to support some
     document called, \"Indigenous Struggle Solidarity Statement\" calling
     Austin an occupied territory. It includes a picture of armed native
     Americans.

     http://deepgreenresistanceaustin.org/2011/10/09/occupy-austin%E2%80%99s-indigenous-struggle-solidarity-statement/

     So, to make a long story short, I think the eco-terror group is focused
     on creating a situation where violent confrontation will be the ultimate
     outcome.
","2011-11-18 21:17:02",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5316058_re-alpha-insight-us-occupy-austin-and-deep-green-resistance.html","burton@stratfor.com","mailto:alpha@stratfor.com","alpha@stratfor.com",""
5334702,"Research Request
","   Hi Ben,
   As we discussed, I'd like to put a really good research-oriented intern on
   the case to find the following information.

   - How many PETA supporters are there in Canada?
   -- How many of these are inclined toward activism?
   -- To what extent is PETA in Canada linked to PETA in the US or elsewhere?
   --What sort of attacks has PETA carried out in Canada?
   -- To what extent could non-PETA hangers-on (such as anarchists or ALF
   supporters) get involved in any protest activity?

   To put some context onto this request, our client is looking forward
   toward the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver and is somewhat concerned that PETA
   affiliates might be interested in carry out direct action against Olympic
   sponsors and events during that time frame.  Any information we can give
   them regarding their activities and what might be expected if the
   organization chooses to participate in direct actions would be very
   helpful to their planning. 

   Please let me know if there are any questions.  I need all the information
   our talented interns can dig up by COB tomorrow, Wednesday, June 3. 
   Thanks,
   Anya
","2009-06-02 21:10:02",1,"2012-02-27 12:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5334702_research-request-.html","Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com","","ben.west@stratfor.com",""
5410884,"RE: INSIGHT -RUSSIA - head of MAJOR criminal group arrested... + chaika craziness
","   Can you get more granular data on the safe room construction?
    
   Also, what MNC's or industries could be affected by this move?
    
   If this OC figure controls the ports (per Peter), what kinds of kickbacks
   could be taking place with outbound containers? 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 6:11 AM
   To: 'Lauren Goodrich'; 'Secure List'; 'EurAsia Team'; 'George Friedman';
   'scott stewart'
   Subject: RE: INSIGHT -RUSSIA - head of MAJOR criminal group arrested... +
   chaika craziness
   What kind of crime did he control? 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: Lauren Goodrich [mailto:goodrich@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 10:50 PM
   To: 'Secure List'; 'EurAsia Team'; George Friedman; Fred Burton; scott
   stewart
   Subject: INSIGHT -RUSSIA - head of MAJOR criminal group arrested... +
   chaika craziness
   [**more coming on all of this, I could only chat briefly with Chaika...
   pls keep the fact that he gave us this info under wraps, but we can use
   the info other than that]
   I'm leaning towards the fact that Putin is really cracking down on any
   power player that doesn't play in his arena... and that the Tambov Clan
   was soooo powerful and didn't listen to Putin as much as he wanted. This
   is a HUGE nab for Chaika (congrats to him)... also a good note for Chaika
   to leave on (he's quitting the Kremlin, so he says... and that is
   classified info for the next week until I get the green light to go
   forward on that huge Kremlin re-shuffle)
   TAMBOV CRIMINAL GROUP
    
   The head of the Tambov Criminal Group Vladimir Barsukov was arrested on
   this past week by the Prosecutor General Chaika's group. Barsukov, also
   known as Kumarin, based his group out of St. Petersburg.
    
   He has many old friends within the inner circle, especially Alexei
   Mordashov (Severstal) and Vladimir Yakunin (railways minister). Barsurkov
   was a person that many in Russia tolerated because of his connections and
   the fact that he was in charge of the highly powerful Tambov gang. But
   Putin considered him a relic of a by-gone era and was eager to get rid of
   him, though he was instrumental during Putin's earlier years. Putin
   himself was \"familiar\" with Barsukov when he worked in the St. Petersburg
   mayoral office.
    
   The entire operation to bring him down was orchestrated by Chaika along
   with FSB head Nikolai Patrushev and Interior Min Rashid Nurgaliev, though
   many tried to stop him-especially Yakunin and Mordashov. [sidenote:
   Yakunin and Chaika have never been close and after the last attack on the
   train from Moscow to St. Petersburg, the security forces turned to Chaika,
   not Yakunin, for information and cooperation.]
    
   Barsukov was in a safe room and it took hours to pry him open from his
   home. They had a huge amount of OMAN police forces with them, knowing that
   this could have become really gross really fast.
    
   One of the breaking points was the fact that Barsukov wanted to gain
   control over many oil infrastructure assets in St. Petersburg... Chaika
   said that this was shocking because no real criminal organizations dare to
   take claim on energy infrastructure. The joke Chaika said was, \"they may
   be crime bosses, but they don't want to mess with Surkov, Sechin,
   Bogdanchikov or others or else they may learn what real pressure and
   tactics looks like.\"
    
   The arrest of Barsurkov is expected to create a few repercussions... 1)
   there will be a power struggle within the Tambov clan [I need to break
   down what they control, can the CT team help?] 2) Chaika and others expect
   atleast some retaliation, though they feel confident in their infiltration
   of the organization to head most of it off 3) Yakunin and Mordashov will
   really be after Chaika, Nurgaliev and Patrushev... Chaika isn't too
   worried about this, but says that Yakunin is really petty about
   retaliation.
    
   OTHER ISSUES...
    
   Chaika said he has already been under a lot of heat because of the
   Politkovskaya arrests. He said that he would rather not tell me about the
   \"Chechen mastermind\" they arrested. I asked if this was because he was not
   really a mastermind and Chaika said that \"many things needed to be tied up
   as we head into this election and the end of Putin's reign.\" [I know this
   is strange, but he kept saying things like, \"Ivanov needs to have control
   over the situation he's about to enter into.... Ivanov is known for his
   distance from such situations, so they need to be wrapped up.\"]
","2007-09-04 17:07:05",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5410884_re-insight-russia-head-of-major-criminal-group-arrested.html","burton@stratfor.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com,burton@stratfor.com,goodrich@stratfor.com,scott.stewart@stratfor.com,eurasia@stratfor.com,secure@stratfor.com",""
5413843,"Public Policy Question for Coca-Cola
","   Coca-Cola just sent me a long list of questions regarding PETA/Animal
   Activism and the upcoming Olympics in Vancouver--I've pasted the questions
   below.  I'm not entirely clear on how much we can task the public policy
   group at this point--is there any guidance you can give me on that front? 
   Coke has asked for a short teleconference with one of our analysts to
   discuss this issue--is that something I could ask Kathy, Bart or Joe to
   do, or would that be off the table at this point?  Stick, are these
   questions something that you have a handle on, if we aren't able to get
   info from the policy folks? 

   Any thoughts or guidance would be helpful. Thanks, Anya

   Questions---
   -- How many PETA supporters are there in Canada?
   -- How many of these are inclined toward activism?
   -- To what extent will US-based PETA supporters travel to Canada to
   support activism?
   -- What is PETA's methodology for planning and executing activism?
    (Understanding this better would certainly help us to recognize
   indicators should they appear.)
   -- To what extent is PETA in Canada linked to PETA in the US or elsewhere?
   -- To what extent are the actions of PETA in one country controlled by an
   oversight board/governing body?
   -- To what extent could non-PETA hangers-on (such as anarchists or ALF
   supporters) get involved in any protest activity?
","2009-06-02 16:56:13",1,"2012-02-27 12:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5413843_public-policy-question-for-coca-cola-.html","Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com","","burton@stratfor.com,scott.stewart@stratfor.com",""
5413863,"Re: Public Policy Question for Coca-Cola
","   Stick, do you have access to email addresses?  I won't be able to get it
   until tomorrow.

   Bart and I talked and he's willing to help.  I put one of our interns on
   the search for details--Bart and I will discuss what our intern has
   collected on Thursday and decide if we need to do more research, or if the
   research and Bart's existing knowledge is enough to handle the request. 
   I'll keep you updated on how it turns out. 

   Fred Burton wrote:

     I know Flanagan, pls send me his email and I'll probe around. 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Anya Alfano [mailto:anya.alfano@stratfor.com]
     Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 1:50 PM
     To: Fred Burton
     Cc: 'scott stewart'
     Subject: Re: Public Policy Question for Coca-Cola
     Kevin Flanagan

     Fred Burton wrote:

       Who is RSO Ottawa?

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       From: Anya Alfano [mailto:anya.alfano@stratfor.com]
       Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 9:56 AM
       To: Fred Burton; scott stewart
       Subject: Public Policy Question for Coca-Cola
       Coca-Cola just sent me a long list of questions regarding PETA/Animal
       Activism and the upcoming Olympics in Vancouver--I've pasted the
       questions below.  I'm not entirely clear on how much we can task the
       public policy group at this point--is there any guidance you can give
       me on that front?  Coke has asked for a short teleconference with one
       of our analysts to discuss this issue--is that something I could ask
       Kathy, Bart or Joe to do, or would that be off the table at this
       point?  Stick, are these questions something that you have a handle
       on, if we aren't able to get info from the policy folks? 

       Any thoughts or guidance would be helpful. Thanks, Anya

       Questions---
       -- How many PETA supporters are there in Canada?
       -- How many of these are inclined toward activism?
       -- To what extent will US-based PETA supporters travel to Canada to
       support activism?
       -- What is PETA's methodology for planning and executing activism?
        (Understanding this better would certainly help us to recognize
       indicators should they appear.)
       -- To what extent is PETA in Canada linked to PETA in the US or
       elsewhere?
       -- To what extent are the actions of PETA in one country controlled by
       an oversight board/governing body?
       -- To what extent could non-PETA hangers-on (such as anarchists or ALF
       supporters) get involved in any protest activity?
","2009-06-02 21:25:55",1,"2012-02-27 12:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5413863_re-public-policy-question-for-coca-cola-.html","Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com","","burton@stratfor.com,scott.stewart@stratfor.com",""
5417207,"New-tern (Aaron) reading list...
","","2009-03-04 17:07:12",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5417207_new-tern-aaron-reading-list-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","nathan.hughes@stratfor.com,eurasia@stratfor.com,kristen.cooper@stratfor.com,aaron.moore@stratfor.com","attach/126/126616_GV Client List for Team.doc
attach/174/174265_Team Eurasia 090302.xls
attach/174/174276_FSU Parliaments.doc
attach/174/174277_FSU sites.doc"
5417564,"Sam Kent & Halliburton 
","   **for internal use only pls
    
   I had lunch yesterday in Houston with former-Federal Judge Sam Kent (the
   first Federal Judge found guilty of serious crimes in the US) and he told
   me why he thinks he was prosecuted.
    
   For those who haven't followed this, he was found guilty on perjury &
   sexual misconduct. Yes, he slept with those two women, but it was
   consensual. Actually, they were old affairs and long over.
    
   What Sam said was that \"isn't is strange that the Justice Department
   begins sniffing around for dirt to throw at me just weeks after I ruled a
   heavy case against Halliburton. Then a small set of affairs turn into an
   untrue situation and then spun up into an unprecedented case against a
   Federal Judge.\"  
    
   Of course, I told him he was nuts to rule anything against Halliburton.
   I also told him that this sounds like a John Grisham plotline.
   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2009-03-08 22:11:04",1,"2012-02-27 09:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5417564_sam-kent-and-halliburton-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","secure@stratfor.com",""
5424835,"[Eurasia] EUROPE ANALYTICAL GUIDANCE - TIER 3
","","2009-06-19 00:30:29",1,"2012-02-28 18:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5424835_-eurasia-europe-analytical-guidance-tier-3-.html","marko.papic@stratfor.com","mailto:eurasia@stratfor.com","eurasia@stratfor.com,nate.hughes@stratfor.com","attach/125/125073_EUROPE ANALYTICAL GUIDANCE - Third Tier.doc"
5431298,"Re: a piece on Russia
","   Very good article Veni!
   I am currently working on a series going through Russia's plans to change
   their economy and how it is going to fall out on the domestic side of
   politics (within Russia's clan war). We are also about to publish our 4th
   quarter forecast starting next week. I'll send you a copy of it when we
   do.
   Thanks,
   Lauren

   Veni Markovski wrote:

     Hi, Lauren.

     Thought you may be interested in reading this small piece of mine on
     Russia.

     Best,
     Veni

     If you are coming to DC, please, feel free to get in touch.

     *How soon is the next Chernobyl?*

     /Russia faces big hurdles and problems; it has no adequate partners in
     the west. Can we change this?
     Will the US support President Medvedev in his efforts to modernize the
     largest country on the planet?/

     In the last few weeks Russian President D.A. Medvedev made some news in
     the USA. First, on Sept. 10 he published on his site an article, \"Go,
     Russia!
     <http://eng.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2009/09/10/1534_type104017_221527.shtml>\",
     five days later he gave an interview
     <http://eng.kremlin.ru/speeches/2009/09/20/1600_type82916_221730.shtml>
     to Fareed Zakaria for CNN. Both were discussed in length, many political
     observers are spending a lot of air time, trying to explain what Mr.
     Medvedev had in mind.

     Some people believe that Mr. Medvedev is genuine in his desire to
     improve Russia. Some are scared by the thought that Russia could be
     strong.

     *The West's fear should not be from a strong, but from a weak Russia* -
     engaged in local ethnic conflicts, attempting to maintain its current
     nuclear arsenal, and running the old and unsafe Soviet industry
     facilities. The tragic disaster at the Sayano-Shushenskaya hydroelectric
     plant in August 2009 should ring a bell not only in Russia, but all over
     the world. It is not a question if there will be another incident, but
     rather when it will happen. The Russian energy sector today suffers from
     unqualified staff, inadequate procedures for maintaining and running
     securely what was built 50 years ago. Chernobyl didn't happen by
     accident, it was a symbol of the whole /system/.

     My appeal to the US is, please, *do not give lectures to the Russians*!
     Give them access to the latest technologies, innovations, and education.
     This will allow Russia to update the old Soviet equipment; otherwise it
     is doomed to more, and perhaps, bigger catastrophes. The access to
     education will change the lives of the Russians much more than giving
     financial aid to the state.

     In order for this new, and perhaps last, effort to succeed, it requires
     not only support from the top - which can be negotiated between the
     presidents, but also support from the Russian citizens. The way to
     engage them, in my view, is through a system education.

     Russian education, which was considered among the best in the world, has
     lost its glory and much of its strength, but the Russians have not lost
     their desire and passion to learn. The US should create programs for
     establishing multi-level relations with Russian primary schools and
     universities, and should encourage not only technological transfer to
     Russia, but also students and educational program exchanges. Russians
     from schools throughout the country should be given the opportunity to
     join the western educational system. College, graduate, and
     post-graduate studies should involve much more Russians than today.

     Don't forget the population problems. Mr. Zakaria mentioned some of them
     - negative growth, massive usage of alcohol (although I question the
     accuracy of his data that more than 50 % of the death of Russians aged
     15-54 is due to alcohol abuse)... Not only is the Russian population
     diminishing, the average Russian male's life expectancy is at a
     stunningly low 61.8 years (compare to Canada - 78.6, USA - 75.6). 
     Then, there's the lack of a well established civil society. Being
     Bulgarian, this is very, very close to me - my own people suffer the
     same lack of belief in their own skills and virtues... or what's left of
     them after 50 years of communism. We share with the Russians not only a
     similar culture, alphabet, religion, but also the same mistakes.

     The US has tried in the past to help Russia - and we all have seen the
     big failure in the 1990s; money was sent to Russia in big quantities,
     with only one visible result today - the  \"primitive economy\", so named
     by President Medvedev. Many Russians blame US experts, who were sent to
     Russia, for the way the Soviet enterprises were privatized. And the word
     \"help\" today causes outbursts by the Russian politicians, even publicly.
     Ask Michael Dell, who offered help for Russia to Prime Minister Putin at
     the 2009 Davos Economic Forum, just to find out that a misinterpreted
     word can sometime cause the anger of Mr. Putin.

     Perhaps some are already asking themselves, why, on Earth, shall we do
     anything, when we have such big problems at home?
     To answer that question, one must think not in the short-term
     perspective of today or tomorrow, but rather what will happen when the
     Soviet equipment starts to explode in a more regular way. And what if
     the next explosion is at a nuclear power plant. But, wait - it could be
     worse - what if this is an explosion of people - unhappy, with no
     alternatives, who are suffering the bureaucracy, and see no hope. If
     this happens, it will influence the whole planet, and that's why it is
     in all of our interest to do what we can to make sure there is no second
     Chernobyl.

     The West has lived for too long in comfortable conditions, thinking that
     what happens in one country does not influence others. East Europe was
     left to the Soviets, and the two system lived happily. Today we are in a
     different world. In the context of climate change discussion, or even
     better - the lack of investment in Afghanistan after the Russians left
     the country in 1989, and what it brought to the USA, and to all of us,
     that seems not like old-fashioned dogma, or a bad taste. It seems
     irresponsible towards our own children and our own planet.

     Veni Markovski,
     Washington, DC
     The author is a blogger, and the President of the Internet Society of
     Bulgaria
     The views expressed are his own, and not of any of the organizations
     he's affiliated with

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2009-10-01 18:56:18",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5431298_re-a-piece-on-russia-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","veni@veni.com",""
5431824,"INSIGHT - the US focus on Georgia and Ukraine 
","   CODE: RU108
   PUBLICATION: yes
   ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in the Moscow
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: senior at one of Putin's think-tanks
   SOURCES LEVEL: high
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 3
   DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
   SOURCE HANDLER: Lauren
    
   This is not Vershbow's only move. He will be tossing himself back and
   forth for the next few months between Georgia and Ukraine. He will be in
   Georgia October 19-20 and then in Ukraine in early November and Georgia in
   late November and then back again to both in December.
    
   In Georgia, Vershbow will be coordinating an expansion of US training of
   Georgian troops. It will most likely not just be defensive anymore.
    
   In Ukraine, yes, there was the BMD announcement that Kiev did not even
   know about. But the bigger concern is that under certain Western nudging,
   Ukraine will resume weapon transfers to Georgia.
    
   Vershbow's primary focus will now be on Georgia and Ukraine, but we all
   know that there is an expiration date on the Ukraine part of this
   equation.
   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2009-10-09 17:52:08",1,"2012-03-02 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5431824_insight-the-us-focus-on-georgia-and-ukraine-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","watchofficer@stratfor.com",""
5435127,"EXCOMM TASK - Paid Source Network
","   Task: To develop a system whereby we can develop a paid source network so
   that we can have a reliable group of people in key parts of the world who
   can provide us with constant stream of insight.

    

   Current Situation: At present we have very few paid sources and the bulk
   of our insight comes from sources who offer us information because of
   their relationships with individual analysts and because of our
   reputation. Obviously there are limits to the quantity and quality of
   intelligence we can obtain through people who share information in
   exchange for access to our reports. In order to become a global
   intelligence company that is ahead of everyone else in the analysis and
   forecasting business we need to build our proprietary source network.

    

   Problem: Such a network is a function of financial bandwidth, which means
   it will be a slow process and what has happened is that it has been ad hoc
   in nature. There is no system by which we determine where we need/or will
   need a source in a given country/region. The few paid people we have were
   developed as the need arose and as we happen to bump into someone.

    

   Solution: I am working with Stick (we have had a preliminary meeting
   before the last excomm session) to come up with a system by which we can
   build out our paid source network. Stick will be working with Jeff to get
   a budget for this purpose which will then be allocated based on the needs
   of each aor and its urgency. The envisioned system will allow each aor
   working through its respective field analyst to relay its need for a paid
   source to the VP of Tactical Intelligence who will then work with the
   field analyst to address the need as quickly as possible within the
   budgetary constraints. In this way we can uniformly develop our network
   and move away from the current randomness.

    

   Timeline:  I will have the first cut on a proposed system ready so that
   everyone can read it over and then come prepared at the next meeting to
   discuss it.
","2009-12-02 00:23:48",1,"2012-03-03 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5435127_excomm-task-paid-source-network-.html","bokhari@stratfor.com","","excomm@stratfor.com",""
5436902,"SRM UPDATE - BULGARIA - 080414
","","2008-04-14 20:01:39",1,"2012-02-28 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5436902_srm-update-bulgaria-080414-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","srmupdate@stratfor.com","attach/174/174845_BULGARIA - Crime_Points 080414.doc
attach/174/174847_BULGARIA - Terrorism and Insurrection_Points 080414.doc
attach/174/174848_BULGARIA - Labor_Points 080414.doc
attach/174/174850_BULGARIA - PoliticalRegulatoryEnvironment_Points 080414.doc
attach/174/174851_BULGARIA - International Frictions_Points 080414.doc
attach/174/174852_BULGARIA - NGOs_Points 080414.doc
attach/174/174853_BULGARIA - Natural Disasters_Points 080414.doc
attach/174/174854_BULGARIA - Country Writeup - 080414.doc"
5437150,"Overview of the Source Review Process
","   Meredith,
   As we discussed, I've included my thoughts about the review process
   below.  Please let me know if you have any questions.  Hope you have a
   safe trip and a good weekend!
   Anya

   This document is meant to provide my observations about the sources that
   have been evaluated to date and our use of those sources.  I've also
   included some other observations about the source review process and the
   thoughts about how to make our source process function more effectively.

    

   To date the groups of sources that have not been reviewed include:

   .      MESA - All of Reva's sources, aside from ME1

   .      FSU - Lauren's Russia sources, aside from the first 20 and new
   sources that Eugene has developed while in the region

   .      East Asia - All sources not managed by Jen (Rodger, Zhixing, Colby,
   Chris, Lena)

   .      Topic Specific Sources - Sources that can discuss economics,
   military, energy, minerals and other similar topics in multiple regions
   and countries

    

   Regional Overviews -

    

   .      Latam - We have a wide range of sources in Latin America that cover
   political, security and economic matters, but we don't have a particular
   depth in any one country or area, with the possible exception of security
   sources in Mexico. Our coverage in Brazil could be especially good as both
   Paulo and Allison further develop their current contacts.  Paulo appears
   to have a good selection of political, security, military and econ
   contacts, though we don't have a good track record of information from
   these contacts at this point. In other countries, we have a scattered
   selection of sources that appear to be primarily political. We have some
   gaps in full country coverage in Latin America, especially in Central
   America, since these areas haven't been particularly important in the
   past. We have some gaps in economics throughout the region, though we also
   are largely lacking tactical details about events and situations within
   the region.

    

   .      East Asia - The sources we've reviewed to date have been handled by
   Jen, so there may be other gems buried among the team. Jen has a few
   select sources that have a deep and broad base of knowledge about specific
   subjects inside China, but mostly they have information specific to
   certain corporations, industries or situations. Jen has several contacts
   with economic and finance related information and analysis that we
   currently utilize. There are also several sources with a solid
   understanding of the political situation, as well as tactical events in
   the country. Moving forward, it may be useful to us to establish
   additional sources outside of Beijing and Shanghai to fill geographic
   gaps, as most of our contacts are currently located in those areas. Our
   coverage of Southeast Asia is largely dependent on two sources in each
   country. We currently have good sources covering several countries that
   all appear to have a good personal network of their own sources to assist
   us. These networks appear to fill most gaps in our coverage throughout the
   sub region.

    

   .      Europe/FSU - Of all regions, I was most troubled by our contacts in
   the FSU region.  While we have some contacts in Romania and Ukraine that
   cover political and economic matters, there are very few contacts that
   have proven to send us information on a reliable basis, and most of these
   contacts have a very narrow focus. That said, both Eugene and Antonia have
   identified a number of potential sources that could fill the gaps that we
   currently see in these areas. Our sources in Kazakhstan include both broad
   and narrowly focused areas of interest, though we don't have a good track
   record of information from many of the sources that would appear to be
   most valuable. This is also the case in many of the smaller countries in
   the region. We've only covered the first 20 of Lauren's Russia sources,
   though so far we appear to have a good grasp of political and energy
   matters in the country. Europe-not including countries of the Former
   Soviet Union - appears to be our weakest region by far. To date, we've
   seen fewer than 10 sources in this region, but this may be due only to our
   focus on other lesser-developed areas.

    

   .      MESA - We don't yet have a complete look at our capabilities in
   MESA without a more detailed examination of the information that's being
   provided by ME1's sub-sources and a review of Reva's sources outside of
   ME1. While we have that information that ME1 has submitted in the archive,
   it's not readily identifiable as belonging to any specific sources, thus
   it's difficult to judge the credibility of the individuals providing
   information.  We also need to evaluate the rest of Reva's non-ME1
   contacts.  Kamran has a broad network of contacts with deep knowledge of
   the history and strategic issues surrounding the Middle East. Changes in
   coding systems and lack of coding for previous insight means we don't have
   a good handle on the information that has previously been provided by
   these contacts. Despite their vast knowledge, the majority of these
   contacts do not have a tactical understanding of the day-to-day affairs in
   the Middle East, or economic affairs throughout the region. While ME1
   likely has sources that can cover these issues in the Levant, we have
   significant gaps in coverage of tactical issues in most Middle Eastern
   countries.  The notable exceptions to these thoughts are Turkey and
   Afghanistan, where we have several sources that can provide information on
   both the strategic and tactical situations related to politics and
   security.  We also have a good selection of Turkish sources with economic
   information, though we don't have a solid track record of information from
   those contacts yet.

    

   .      Africa - Mark has a very large list of contacts that could provide
   information on a wide variety of topics.  However, outside of South
   Africa, the majority of his sources appear to have a very narrow scope of
   interest and are typically not easily accessible.  Additionally, most of
   these contacts are not regularly in communication with Mark, which may
   make it difficult for us to tap into their knowledge on a regular basis.
   Many would be useful in very specific circumstances, but few could be
   considered to have an in-depth knowledge and expertise of broader topics
   or fields of study. Mark has some sources in South Africa that have a
   broader understanding of the political and security situation in South
   Africa and the energy and mining situations throughout the southern Africa
   region. However, most of the contact list appears to be related to
   security, or specific corporations, leaving gags in the area of economics.
   There are also gaps in some countries throughout the continent and gaps in
   our understanding of larger economic, mining, and energy issues outside of
   the southern regions.

    

   General Impressions

   .      We found that many analysts frequently had not been sending insight
   information, either because it they did not consider their information to
   be insight, or because they had not yet coded the contact providing the
   insight.  A simplified way to provide source codes and updated guidance on
   when a source should be given a code and what information should be sent
   will solve this problem.

   .      In previous years, I would estimate that more than 50% of all
   insight sent to the lists did not include a source code.  Now that we're
   attempting to evaluate each source based on the information that they're
   providing, it's more important that source codes are used each time a
   piece of insight is sent.  The Watch Officers have already been extremely
   helpful in making sure the analysts are using codes when possible.  This
   should aid in the next evaluation.

   .      Our use of sources is currently limited by the fact that the
   analysts don't always know that a source exists.  Obviously this is due in
   part to operational security, but it may be beneficial if source
   descriptions are provided among regional team members to make sure that
   everyone is aware a certain source exists and it may be possible to tap
   that individual for information.

   .      We have very few sources that are proactive in providing us with
   information, despite some very long and beneficial relationships.

   .      Of all media sources, multiple regions noted that they frequently
   interact with Reuters news agency more than others. I'm not sure if that
   means something specific, but our analysts seem to interact with Reuters
   journalists and bureau chiefs very frequently.

   .      I didn't see any specific trends related to the use of
   Confederation partners among regions. While some have been very useful to
   date, it seems that there may be a mismatch between the individuals our
   analysts are speaking with and the people who actually have the
   information we're seeking. In some cases, it seems like this might be
   deliberate, or may be related to perceptions that we're competition within
   the industry.  In some cases, these partnerships appear to be flourishing
   and providing us with good information. I don't recall hearing from any
   analyst that the relationship was too draining or too demanding for us to
   fulfill.

   .      Several analysts brought up the idea of \"tag-teaming\" some sources,
   especially when dealing with confederation partners and indicated that
   this was a good strategy for an all-sides approach to the company so that
   we can try to ensure we're connecting as much as possible, especially in
   cases where one person \"clicks\" more with the partner involved.

    

    
","2011-10-01 01:28:43",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5437150_overview-of-the-source-review-process-.html","Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com","","mfriedman@stratfor.com",""
5440404,"Re: Discussion - Georgia Update
","   do I have permission to write?

   POSSIBLE BUDGET - Stratfor has been long following the tit-for-tat
   struggle between Georgia and Russia [LINK] and as there has been an
   escalation seemed to be near breaking point [LINK], but has subsided for
   now since Tbilisi knows that no one is coming to its defense against its
   big bear of a neighbor. However, the question to watch now is if Moscow
   will again push the issue since it seems as if it is getting its internal
   issues out of the way, which could free it up to concentrate on other
   things, like its struggle with Georgia.

   Lauren Goodrich wrote:

     crisis has subsided for now...
     though the Georgians are still trying to get the Europeans behind
     them... they won't bite.
     but could flare up again if the Kremlin get a better free hand
     internally.

     friedman@att.blackberry.net wrote:

 So has the crisis subsided or was it never really there? 
 Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Lauren Goodrich <goodrich@stratfor.com>

 Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 11:13:28
 To:Analyst List <analysts@stratfor.com>
 Subject: Discussion - Georgia Update


 We haven't seen any large moves over the weekend for 2 reasons:
      1) Georgia is still negotiating with the Europeans... though they seem to not be giving anything to Tbilisi
      2) Germany and France would have to make the decision for that to change... doubt that will happen, esp with Russia and Germany meeting tomorrow on the issue
      2) Kremlin has been locked away on domestic issues, which could end soon with some of the shifts Putin is making so he can concentrate on other issues.
 
  Lauren Goodrich wrote: CODE: GE101, UA102
  PUBLICATION: yes
  ATTRIBUTION: Stratfor sources in Tbilisi & Moscow
  SOURCES RELIABILITY: C-D
  ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2-4
  SPECIAL HANDLING: Analysts
  SOURCE HANDLER: Lauren
   
   
  SOURCE 1:
  The Foreign Ministers' dinner between select Europeans-president of EU, Poland, Lithuania, etc-- and the Georgians is about to just wrap up. Leaks from it are that the Europeans can not send any help to Georgia, especially since Germany and France have forbid it; In all honesty, Germany and France also were not in favor of the trip to Tbilisi, so it is not even EU sanctioned, though under the banner of the EU since its president is on the trip.
   
  SOURCE 2:
  Lithuania is not backing down to the EU's push for it to drop its veto against Russia. It is saying that its veto is even more important with the conflict rising between Georgia and Russia. Lithuania seems to be Georgia's most vocal supporter at the moment, much to the rest of the EU's ire.
   
  Steinmeier is suppose to meet with Lavrov tomorrow. They are suppose to be telling Germany to continue keeping out of the conflict with Georgia.
   
  

     --

     Lauren Goodrich
     Director of Analysis
     Senior Eurasia Analyst
     Stratfor
     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
     T: 512.744.4311
     F: 512.744.4334
     lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
     www.stratfor.com

       ------------------------------------------------------------------

 _______________________________________________
 Analysts mailing list

 LIST ADDRESS:
 analysts@stratfor.com
 LIST INFO:
 https://smtp.stratfor.com/mailman/listinfo/analysts
 LIST ARCHIVE:
 http://smtp.stratfor.com/pipermail/analysts

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2008-05-12 18:36:56",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5440404_re-discussion-georgia-update-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com",""
5447352,"Re: PETA
","   Hi Van,
   I'm checking with our analysts to find out what information we already
   have on the subject.  I'll get back to you soon with more information.
   Best regards,
   Anya

   Van C. Wilberding wrote:

     Hi Anya,

     Thanks again for your help with respect to the Korean Peninsula
     situation.

     We are now looking at PETA and the potential for protests at the
     Vancouver Olympics and related events.  (Please see the following
     questions below.)  We'd like to schedule a time for a conference call
     with you and/or your analyst(s) on this topic.

     -- How many PETA supporters are there in Canada?
     -- How many of these are inclined toward activism?
     -- To what extent will US-based PETA supporters travel to Canada to
     support activism?
     -- What is PETA's methodology for planning and executing activism?
      (Understanding this better would certainly help us to recognize
     indicators should they appear.)
     -- To what extent is PETA in Canada linked to PETA in the US or
     elsewhere?
     -- To what extent are the actions of PETA in one country controlled by
     an oversight board/governing body?
     -- To what extent could non-PETA hangers-on (such as anarchists or ALF
     supporters) get involved in any protest activity?

     Please let us know what works in terms of timing of the conference call.

     Thanks again,

     Van
     Coca-Cola: LIVE POSITIVELY - Our Company and leaders have supported
     education for more than 100 years. Learn about our education programs
     around the world.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     
     This message (including any attachments) contains information that may
     be confidential. Unless you are the intended recipient (or authorized to
     receive for the intended recipient), you may not read, print, retain,
     use, copy, distribute or disclose to anyone the message or any
     information contained in the message. If you have received the message
     in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and destroy all
     copies of the original message (including any attachments).
","2009-06-02 17:23:15",1,"2012-02-27 12:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5447352_re-peta-.html","Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com","","vwilberding@na.ko.com,genbrown@na.ko.com",""
5454590,"Re: FW: email of Fred Burton
","   sorry... wrote him this morning.

   Fred Burton wrote:

     Lauren, That Veni dude sent me a note wanting to know when we would be
     in touch, just so you know, advised him we have been swamped. 

     Lauren Goodrich wrote:

       Okay, heard back from my side.
       He is hooked into the Bulgairan OC, but nothing too shady bout that
       since he is Bulgarian.
       He is not hooked into the Russians either through OC or FSB.

       Fred Burton wrote:

         Thank you

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: Lauren Goodrich [mailto:goodrich@stratfor.com]
         Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 11:39 PM
         To: Fred Burton
         Subject: Re: FW: email of Fred Burton
         Markovski is a huge internet mogul in Bulgaria. He is kinda a
         strange guy, but very powerful in business circles. I've shipped his
         name to my ppl to see if he is hooked into FSB or OC. But he is one
         of the biggest founders of Internet in Bulgaria and the region. I
         know he has ties into Russia and the rest of the CIS.

         To be honest, I can't imagine him having a \"gmail\" account with his
         own name on it. That seems really suspect to me since he is such a
         powerful and rich dude.

         Fred Burton wrote:

            Any idea who these folks are?  Thx  

           -----Original Message-----
           From: veni Markovski [mailto:venimarkovski@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
           Veni Markovski
           Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 4:46 PM
           To: service@stratfor.com
           Subject: email of Fred Burton

           Hi.

           I am looking for the e-mail of Mr. Burton. Would be glad, if you
           can send it.

           Thank you.

           Sincerely,

           Veni Markovski

           Senior Advisor for International Projects
           <http://www.daits.government.bg/>State Agency for IT and
           Communications <http://www.government.bg/>Council of Ministers |
           REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA
           ----------------
           email: <mailto:veni@veni.com>veni@veni.com | email2:
           <mailto:veni@daits.government.bg>veni@daits.government.bg
           office: +1-646-873-7708 | office2: +359-2-401-8008 | fax:
           +1-212-319-5955 Bulgarian Consulate General, 121 E 62nd Str., New
           York, NY 10021, USA

         --

         Lauren Goodrich
         Director of Analysis
         Senior Eurasia Analyst
         Stratfor
         Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
         T: 512.744.4311
         F: 512.744.4334
         lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
         www.stratfor.com

       --

       Lauren Goodrich
       Director of Analysis
       Senior Eurasia Analyst
       Stratfor
       Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
       T: 512.744.4311
       F: 512.744.4334
       lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
       www.stratfor.com

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2008-08-14 21:23:23",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5454590_re-fw-email-of-fred-burton-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","burton@stratfor.com",""
5454900,"For the New-Tern
","","2008-08-19 18:47:41",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5454900_for-the-new-tern-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","gordon.wilkins@stratfor.com","attach/126/126613_FSU sweep list.doc
attach/126/126616_GV Client List for Team.doc
attach/174/174277_FSU sites.doc
attach/175/175579_GEOPOLITICAL IMPERATIVE - RUSSIA.doc"
5462138,"Re: Fwd: Question
","   No, we're not aware of any concrete connections between fundamentalist
   Islamist movements and the Day of Rage, or the October 2011 movement at
   this point. 

   On 8/18/11 1:17 PM, Fred Burton wrote:

     ?

     -------- Original Message --------

      Subject: Question                                      
         Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 10:15:13 -0700 (PDT)         
         From: Thomas Kopecky <tkopecky@fortisworldwide.com> 
     Reply-To: tkopecky@fortisworldwide.com                  
           To: Fred Burton <burton@stratfor.com>             

     Hi Fred & thanks for those books you signed....my father thought that    
     was a great gift.                                                        
                                                                              
     I was looking into that US Day of Rage movement and specifically asked   
     to connect it to any Saudi or other fundamentalist Islamic movements -   
                                                                              
     Thus far I have only hear rumors but not gotten any substantial          
     connection.                                                              
                                                                              
     Do you guys know much about this other than its US Domestic fiscal       
     ideals ?                                                                 
                                                                              
     thanks                                                                   
                                                                              
     Tom                                                                      
                                                                              
                                                                              
                                                                              
     Thomas Kopecky, Director of Operations                                   
                                                                              
     - Investigative Research Consultants, Inc.                               
                                                                              
     - Fortis Protective Services, LLC                                        
                                                                              
     1 E Wacker Dr. Suite 2300                                                
     Chicago, IL 60601                                                        
     312.832.9600 - office                                                    
                                                                              
     1145 West 5th St. #101                                                   
                                                                              
     Austin, TX 78703                                                         
                                                                              
     512.381.9000                                                             
                                                                              
     800.578.8212 - fax                                                       
                                                                              
     www.ircIntelligence.com                                                  
                                                                              
     www.fortisworldwide.com                                                  
                                                                              
                                                                              
","2011-08-18 19:29:44",1,"2012-03-02 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5462138_re-fwd-question-.html","Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com","","burton@stratfor.com,korena.zucha@stratfor.com",""
5465308,"FOR NEW-TERN CATHERINE
","","2009-01-06 04:37:37",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5465308_for-new-tern-catherine-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","eurasia@stratfor.com,catherine.durbin@stratfor.com","attach/126/126613_FSU sweep list.doc
attach/126/126616_GV Client List for Team.doc
attach/174/174276_FSU Parliaments.doc
attach/174/174277_FSU sites.doc
attach/175/175579_GEOPOLITICAL IMPERATIVE - RUSSIA.doc"
5466187,"[Fwd: [Eurasia] FOR NEW-TERN CATHERINE]
","","2009-01-23 22:00:16",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5466187_-fwd-eurasia-for-new-tern-catherine-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","marko.papic@stratfor.com","attach/126/126613_FSU sweep list.doc
attach/126/126616_GV Client List for Team.doc
attach/174/174276_FSU Parliaments.doc
attach/174/174277_FSU sites.doc
attach/175/175579_GEOPOLITICAL IMPERATIVE - RUSSIA.doc"
5482669,"Cyber Security Question...
","   Hey boys!
   Veni Markovski (Bulgaria's richest man, head of ICAAN & advisor to the US
   and EU on cyber stuff) is a pal of mine and wants to chat with Stratfor's
   person/people on cyber security. He's super low maintenance and friendly.
   Think he just wants to open diolague for y'all to be able to ask questions
   to him (he's a big Strat-fan). Who would like to speak with him? I can set
   it up so two people conference with him on the phone. Or if Nate has time,
   Veni does hold a house in DC.
   Let me know!
   Lauren
   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-02-11 02:52:53",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5482669_cyber-security-question-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","gfriedman@stratfor.com,goodrich@stratfor.com,scott.stewart@stratfor.com,nathan.hughes@stratfor.com",""
5485587,"New-tern info
","","2008-09-03 16:44:45",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5485587_new-tern-info-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","christya.parobii@stratfor.com","attach/126/126613_FSU sweep list.doc
attach/126/126616_GV Client List for Team.doc
attach/174/174277_FSU sites.doc
attach/175/175579_GEOPOLITICAL IMPERATIVE - RUSSIA.doc"
5485797,"Re: Greetings from Stratfor
","   Dar Veni,
   My humblest apologies, but your email was blocked by my email filters, but
   I have that fixed now.
   I am available to speak with you on your time since I know you are
   traveling.
   My cell phone number is 281-460-9382.
   Just let me know about when you'll call and I'll make myself available.
   Apologies again on missing your initial email,
   Lauren

   Veni Markovski wrote:

     Dear Laureen,
     we've exchanged some emails, and last I wrote you that I'd be happy to
     talk to you, but didn't get a return email as to when is good time.

     I am in New York only today and tomorrow, leaving again for
     Russia/Turkmenistan/Bulgaria.

     Please, advise.

     veni

     At 01:46 PM 8/14/2008  -0500, you wrote:

       Mr. Markovski,

       Fred Burton passed along your information to me, saying you were
       interested in speaking to someone at Stratfor who deals with the
       region. Sorry for the delay in contacting you, but the war took all my
       attention I admit.

       I am the Senior Eurasia analyst and admit to having recognized your
       name off the bat. I know you do much business all around Eurasia,
       especially Eastern Europe and Russia. I would love to hear your
       thoughts on the recent events, especially since you are so deeply
       hooked into the region.

       Let me know when you would like to chat; my email and contact number
       is below.

       Cheers,
       Lauren
       --
       Lauren E. Goodrich
       Director of Analysis
       Senior Eurasia Analyst
       Stratfor
       Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
       T: 512.744.4311
       F: 512.744.4334
       <mailto:lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com>lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
       www.stratfor.com

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2008-09-09 19:19:48",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5485797_re-greetings-from-stratfor-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","veni@veni.com",""
5486913,"Strat-subscription for a source?
","   Hey John...
   May I get a subscription for my source?
   Name: Veni Markovski
   Email: Veni@Veni.com
   Thanks so much!!
   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2008-10-17 15:05:56",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5486913_strat-subscription-for-a-source-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","gibbons@stratfor.com,goodrich@stratfor.com",""
5487384,"RE: Strat-subscription for a source?
","   Hey Lauren,

    

   This guy is done.  Username is the email address and the password is
   stratfor (all lower case)

    

    

   John Gibbons

   Stratfor

   Customer Service Manager

   T: +1-512-744-4305

   F: +1-512-744-4334

   gibbons@stratfor.com

   www.stratfor.com

    

    

   From: Lauren Goodrich [mailto:goodrich@stratfor.com]
   Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 8:06 AM
   To: John Gibbons; Lauren Goodrich
   Subject: Strat-subscription for a source?

    

   Hey John...
   May I get a subscription for my source?
   Name: Veni Markovski
   Email: Veni@Veni.com
   Thanks so much!!

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2008-11-03 21:04:35",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5487384_re-strat-subscription-for-a-source-.html","gibbons@stratfor.com","","goodrich@stratfor.com",""
5493154,"[Eurasia] For the New-Terns
","9","2008-06-27 20:58:41",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5493154_-eurasia-for-the-new-terns-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","mailto:eurasia@stratfor.com","eurasia@stratfor.com","attach/126/126613_FSU sweep list.doc
attach/126/126616_GV Client List for Team.doc
attach/177/177181_GEOPOLITICAL IMPERATIVE - RUSSIA.doc"
5496389,"[Fwd: New-tern info]
","2","2008-09-03 16:48:06",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5496389_-fwd-new-tern-info-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","goodrich@stratfor.com","attach/126/126613_FSU sweep list.doc
attach/126/126616_GV Client List for Team.doc
attach/174/174277_FSU sites.doc
attach/175/175579_GEOPOLITICAL IMPERATIVE - RUSSIA.doc"
5498748,"Re: Stratfor's Kremlin Model
","   telling surkov no and not providing an alternative?

   that's just suicide

   Lauren Goodrich wrote:

     as long as you give me options for fun

     Peter Zeihan wrote:

       all the time i bet -- you can't kill x, but feel free to have fun with
       y

       Lauren Goodrich wrote:

         does Medvedev ever tell Surkov that? Always squashing my fun. :-(

         Peter Zeihan wrote:

           no executions of the analysts

           we have some extra researchers however....

             Lauren Goodrich wrote:

               I like this game... can I really make the order?

               Marko Papic wrote:

                 Hmmm... I don't really care whether you live or die... In
                 fact, I find your chess prowess a good substitute of
                 otherworldly manliness in your otherwise wimpy persona.
                 Nonetheless, if ordered by my puppet master, I will make
                 your internal organs slowly bleed you to death.

                 ----- Original Message -----
                 From: \"Lauren Goodrich\" <goodrich@stratfor.com>
                 To: \"Karen Hooper\" <hooper@stratfor.com>
                 Cc: \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>, \"Reva Bhalla\"
                 <bhalla@stratfor.com>, \"Peter Zeihan\" <zeihan@stratfor.com>,
                 \"Matt Gertken\" <matt.gertken@stratfor.com>, \"nate hughes\"
                 <nathan.hughes@stratfor.com>, \"Kristen Cooper\"
                 <kristen.cooper@stratfor.com>, \"Kevin Stech\"
                 <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
                 Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 12:14:17 PM GMT -05:00
                 Columbia
                 Subject: Re: Stratfor's Kremlin Model

                 hey... you live outside of big bad russia though & you have
                 tons of US backers.

                 Karen Hooper wrote:

                   That's right, i'm an ineffective democratist in an
                   authoritarian state. and you ALL WANT ME DEAD.

                   I see how it is.

                   Marko Papic wrote:

                     AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

                     Sweet!

                     ----- Original Message -----
                     From: \"Lauren Goodrich\" <goodrich@stratfor.com>
                     To: \"Kevin Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
                     Cc: \"Karen Hooper\" <hooper@stratfor.com>, \"Reva Bhalla\"
                     <bhalla@stratfor.com>, \"Peter Zeihan\"
                     <zeihan@stratfor.com>, \"Marko Papic\"
                     <marko.papic@stratfor.com>, \"Matt Gertken\"
                     <matt.gertken@stratfor.com>, \"nate hughes\"
                     <nathan.hughes@stratfor.com>, \"Kristen Cooper\"
                     <kristen.cooper@stratfor.com>
                     Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 12:08:08 PM GMT -05:00
                     Columbia
                     Subject: Re: Stratfor's Kremlin Model

                     Karen is officially Kasparov (Reva recognized it)...
                     they are both freedom-loving, loud-mouth hippies. :)

                     Kevin Stech wrote:

                       Yes, good point.  You haven't made it till you got a
                       kremlin double.

                       Karen Hooper wrote:

                         Pffft. Whatever, at least you HAVE a kremlin double.

                         Kevin Stech wrote:

                           THAT'S COOL I SEE HOW IT IS

                           Lauren Goodrich wrote:

                             I am trying to hedge my recommendation for Kev,
                             y'all.... I feel bad...  you're not helping. 
                             ;-)

                             Reva Bhalla wrote:

                               ahahahahahhahahaaaa
                               i think peter just called kevy bear an ass
                               ----- Original Message -----
                               From: \"Peter Zeihan\" <zeihan@stratfor.com>
                               To: \"Lauren Goodrich\" <goodrich@stratfor.com>
                               Cc: \"Kevin Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>,
                               \"Marko Papic\" <marko.papic@stratfor.com>,
                               \"Matt Gertken\" <matt.gertken@stratfor.com>,
                               \"Reva Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>,
                               \"nate hughes\" <nathan.hughes@stratfor.com>,
                               \"Karen Hooper\" <hooper@stratfor.com>, \"Kristen
                               Cooper\" <kristen.cooper@stratfor.com>
                               Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 7:35:36 AM
                               GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
                               Subject: Re: Stratfor's Kremlin Model

                               deeply
                               truly

                               he's an ass

                               Lauren Goodrich wrote:

                                 NO! Gref is deeply respected. 

                                 Sent from my iPhone
                                 On Nov 12, 2008, at 9:38 PM, Kevin Stech
                                 <kevin.stech@stratfor.com> wrote:

                                   so the analogy runs pretty deep? ;-)

                                   Marko Papic wrote:

                                     AHAHAHHAHA, you forgot to mention that
                                     also everyone hates him!

                                     ----- Original Message -----
                                     From: \"Lauren Goodrich\"
                                     <goodrich@stratfor.com>
                                     To: \"Marko Papic\"
                                     <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
                                     Cc: \"Matt Gertken\"
                                     <matt.gertken@stratfor.com>, \"Peter
                                     Zeihan\" <zeihan@stratfor.com>, \"Reva
                                     Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>,
                                     \"nate hughes\"
                                     <nathan.hughes@stratfor.com>, \"Kevin
                                     Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>,
                                     \"Karen Hooper\" <hooper@stratfor.com>,
                                     \"Kristen Cooper\"
                                     <kristen.cooper@stratfor.com>
                                     Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 3:54:03
                                     PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
                                     Subject: Re: Stratfor's Kremlin Model

                                     NEW ADDITION.....
                                     Kevin as German Gref.... Gref is former
                                     Economic Minister & one of the most
                                     genius minds to serve in Russia...
                                     however, he is highly aggressive in his
                                     manner and treats everyone like they're
                                     dumb.
                                     (sorry kev... luv you.... hey, i called
                                     you a genius)

                                     Marko Papic wrote:

                                       hmmmm... ok, sold.

                                       ----- Original Message -----
                                       From: \"Lauren Goodrich\"
                                       <goodrich@stratfor.com>
                                       To: \"Marko Papic\"
                                       <marko.papic@stratfor.com>
                                       Cc: \"Matt Gertken\"
                                       <matt.gertken@stratfor.com>, \"Peter
                                       Zeihan\" <zeihan@stratfor.com>, \"Reva
                                       Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>,
                                       \"nate hughes\"
                                       <nathan.hughes@stratfor.com>, \"Kevin
                                       Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>,
                                       \"Karen Hooper\" <hooper@stratfor.com>
                                       Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008
                                       10:09:14 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada
                                       Central
                                       Subject: Re: Stratfor's Kremlin Model

                                       you like to wrestle tigers?

                                       Marko Papic wrote:

                                         I'm a dirty Chechen?!

                                         ----- Original Message -----
                                         From: \"Matt Gertken\"
                                         <matt.gertken@stratfor.com>
                                         To: \"Karen Hooper\"
                                         <hooper@stratfor.com>
                                         Cc: \"Lauren Goodrich\"
                                         <goodrich@stratfor.com>, \"Peter
                                         Zeihan\" <zeihan@stratfor.com>,
                                         \"Marko Papic\"
                                         <marko.papic@stratfor.com>, \"Reva
                                         Bhalla\" <reva.bhalla@stratfor.com>,
                                         \"nate hughes\"
                                         <nathan.hughes@stratfor.com>, \"Kevin
                                         Stech\" <kevin.stech@stratfor.com>
                                         Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008
                                         9:32:23 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada
                                         Central
                                         Subject: Re: Stratfor's Kremlin
                                         Model

                                         My guess, Karen, is that you are way
                                         too nice and cheerful to be matched
                                         with anyone in the Kremlin.

                                         Karen Hooper wrote:

                                           what about
                                           meeeeeeeeeeeeeee????????

                                           Lauren Goodrich wrote:

                                             **from a Reva-Peter conversation
                                             that snowballed into a new
                                             Stratfor-Kremlin model... please
                                             add to the list
                                             Keep this to the list of emails
                                             above for now pls
                                             New Additions:
                                             Marko is Kadyrov (scary, but
                                             thinks his race should rule)
                                             Matt is Kiriyenko or Naryushkin
                                             (brilliant, but doesn't try to
                                             take others down with it)
                                             Nate is Serdyukov (understands
                                             that military isn't just about
                                             saying you have weapons)
                                             Meredith is Lavrov (diplomatic,
                                             knows everything, can be
                                             aggressive at the best moments)
                                             Fred is Patryushev (intelligence
                                             & connected)
                                             Laura is Rogozin (ambassador to
                                             Europe, but always says what not
                                             suppose to)
                                             Already assigned:
                                             George is Putin (kingmaker and
                                             pushes decisions through no
                                             matter what... both short & with
                                             a complex)
                                             Peter is Medvedev (more
                                             pragmatic decisionmaker... but
                                             still kinda dorky)
                                             Jeff is Kudrin (brains and
                                             money... who knew a checkbook
                                             could be balanced)
                                             Lauren is Surkov (wants to know
                                             everything, can skin a person in
                                             under 3 minuets, but doesn't
                                             want to be top dog)
                                             Stick is Sechin (has his fingers
                                             in the shadier stuff)
                                             Reva is Ivanov (one of the
                                             decision-makers, willing to
                                             stand up to Putin)

                                             Peter Zeihan wrote:

                                               Putin = George model...
                                               PZeihanStratfor (8:26:48 AM):
                                               kudrin is the kremlin's jeff
                                               rbhallastratfor (8:26:56 AM):
                                               ooh
                                               rbhallastratfor (8:26:59 AM):
                                               who do you get to be
                                               rbhallastratfor (8:27:09 AM):
                                               who gets to be surkov
                                               PZeihanStratfor (8:27:19 AM):
                                               lauren of course
                                               rbhallastratfor (8:27:24 AM):
                                               ah of course
                                               PZeihanStratfor (8:27:30 AM):
                                               stick is sechin
                                               PZeihanStratfor (8:27:34 AM):
                                               i'm medvedev
                                               rbhallastratfor (8:27:37 AM):
                                               haha
                                               PZeihanStratfor (8:27:39 AM):
                                               you're ivanov
                                               rbhallastratfor (8:27:41 AM):
                                               that totall works
                                               rbhallastratfor (8:27:43 AM):
                                               sweet!

                                             --
                                             Lauren Goodrich
                                             Director of Analysis
                                             Senior Eurasia Analyst
                                             Stratfor
                                             T: 512.744.4311
                                             F: 512.744.4334
                                             lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
                                             www.stratfor.com

                                           --
                                           Karen Hooper
                                           Latin America Analyst
                                           Stratfor
                                           206.755.6541
                                           www.stratfor.com

                                         --
                                         Marko Papic

                                         Stratfor Junior Analyst
                                         C: + 1-512-905-3091
                                         marko.papic@stratfor.com
                                         AIM: mpapicstratfor

                                       --
                                       Lauren Goodrich
                                       Director of Analysis
                                       Senior Eurasia Analyst
                                       Stratfor
                                       T: 512.744.4311
                                       F: 512.744.4334
                                       lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
                                       www.stratfor.com

                                       --
                                       Marko Papic

                                       Stratfor Junior Analyst
                                       C: + 1-512-905-3091
                                       marko.papic@stratfor.com
                                       AIM: mpapicstratfor

                                     --
                                     Lauren Goodrich
                                     Director of Analysis
                                     Senior Eurasia Analyst
                                     Stratfor
                                     T: 512.744.4311
                                     F: 512.744.4334
                                     lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
                                     www.stratfor.com

                                     --
                                     Marko Papic

                                     Stratfor Junior Analyst
                                     C: + 1-512-905-3091
                                     marko.papic@stratfor.com
                                     AIM: mpapicstratfor

 --
 Kevin R. Stech
 STRATFOR
 Monitor/Researcher
 P: 512.744.4086
 M: 512.671.0981
 E: kevin.stech@stratfor.com

                             --
                             Lauren Goodrich
                             Director of Analysis
                             Senior Eurasia Analyst
                             Stratfor
                             T: 512.744.4311
                             F: 512.744.4334
                             lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
                             www.stratfor.com

 --
 Kevin R. Stech
 STRATFOR
 Monitor/Researcher
 P: 512.744.4086
 M: 512.671.0981
 E: kevin.stech@stratfor.com

                         --
                         Karen Hooper
                         Latin America Analyst
                         Stratfor
                         206.755.6541
                         www.stratfor.com

 --
 Kevin R. Stech
 STRATFOR
 Monitor/Researcher
 P: 512.744.4086
 M: 512.671.0981
 E: kevin.stech@stratfor.com

                     --
                     Lauren Goodrich
                     Director of Analysis
                     Senior Eurasia Analyst
                     Stratfor
                     T: 512.744.4311
                     F: 512.744.4334
                     lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
                     www.stratfor.com

                     --
                     Marko Papic

                     Stratfor Junior Analyst
                     C: + 1-512-905-3091
                     marko.papic@stratfor.com
                     AIM: mpapicstratfor

                   --
                   Karen Hooper
                   Latin America Analyst
                   Stratfor
                   206.755.6541
                   www.stratfor.com

                 --
                 Lauren Goodrich
                 Director of Analysis
                 Senior Eurasia Analyst
                 Stratfor
                 T: 512.744.4311
                 F: 512.744.4334
                 lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
                 www.stratfor.com

                 --
                 Marko Papic

                 Stratfor Junior Analyst
                 C: + 1-512-905-3091
                 marko.papic@stratfor.com
                 AIM: mpapicstratfor

               --
               Lauren Goodrich
               Director of Analysis
               Senior Eurasia Analyst
               Stratfor
               T: 512.744.4311
               F: 512.744.4334
               lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
               www.stratfor.com

             --
             Karen Hooper
             Latin America Analyst
             Stratfor
             206.755.6541
             www.stratfor.com

         --
         Lauren Goodrich
         Director of Analysis
         Senior Eurasia Analyst
         Stratfor
         T: 512.744.4311
         F: 512.744.4334
         lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
         www.stratfor.com

     --
     Lauren Goodrich
     Director of Analysis
     Senior Eurasia Analyst
     Stratfor
     T: 512.744.4311
     F: 512.744.4334
     lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
     www.stratfor.com
","2008-11-17 18:46:09",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5498748_re-stratfor-s-kremlin-model-.html","zeihan@stratfor.com","","bhalla@stratfor.com,goodrich@stratfor.com,hooper@stratfor.com,nathan.hughes@stratfor.com,marko.papic@stratfor.com,matt.gertken@stratfor.com,kristen.cooper@stratfor.com,kevin.stech@stratfor.com",""
5499584,"Research Task - Shady Bulgarian. 
","   Hey missy,

   Will you do me a favor tonight/tomorrow and check into this guy: Veni
   Markovski. He has his own wikipedia page
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veni_Markovski. Was wondering if he has OC or
   FSB connections.

   I don't need an in depth search, but any flags you find would be helpful.
   It is not a client project, but a security problem for us.

   Thanks!

   Lauren
   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2008-08-11 06:39:59",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5499584_research-task-shady-bulgarian-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","goodrich@stratfor.com,colibasanu@stratfor.com,brycerogers@stratfor.com",""
5501231,"Re: [MESA] FW: [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] RE: Missteps in
 the Syrian Opposition's Propaganda Effort
","   i trust ME1 on this question. i hate this region, aaaaargh

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   From: \"Karen Hooper\" <hooper@stratfor.com>
   To: \"Middle East AOR\" <mesa@stratfor.com>
   Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 1:56:47 PM
   Subject: Re: [MESA] FW: [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] RE: Missteps
   in the Syrian Opposition's Propaganda Effort

   I found OS reports of them being Alawite, as well, but it was a truly
   mixed bag. Nothing seems to agree.

   Karen Hooper
   Latin America Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4300 x4103
   C: 512.750.7234
   www.STRATFOR.com
   On 12/15/11 1:45 PM, Nick Grinstead wrote:

     could ME1 be wrong? We've got overwhelming OS vs one source. Not saying
     that ME1 is lying but maybe they're misinformed as well. We should dig
     into this more before we give an answer.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: \"Omar Lamrani\" <omar.lamrani@stratfor.com>
     To: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>
     Cc: \"Middle East AOR\" <mesa@stratfor.com>, \"CT AOR\" <ct@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 8:52:28 PM
     Subject: Re: [MESA] FW: [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] RE:
     Missteps in the Syrian Opposition's Propaganda Effort

     Wow, that is crazy. Overwhelmingly OS is reporting that they are Sunni.
     Some reports even talk about the exact tribal affiliation of Shawkat as
     coming from the Sunni tribe of Bani Khaled.

     On 12/15/11 11:36 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

       well, shit.  most of the OS info on them is wrong. ME1 is saying
       they're Alawites.

       Goddamnit. I'll write to the reader and work with the writers to
       include a correction.  Lesson learned - don't trust OS on verifying
       sectarian affiliation.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       From: \"Omar Lamrani\" <omar.lamrani@stratfor.com>
       To: \"Middle East AOR\" <mesa@stratfor.com>
       Cc: \"Reva Bhalla\" <bhalla@stratfor.com>, \"CT AOR\" <ct@stratfor.com>
       Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 9:50:16 AM
       Subject: Re: [MESA] FW: [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] RE:
       Missteps in the Syrian Opposition's Propaganda Effort

       I concur with Reva, I have read multiple reports in multiple languages
       that indicate these guys are Sunni.

       On 12/15/11 9:32 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

         the background material I've seen and re-read on these two guys is
         that they are Sunni.  I sent a message to ME1 this morning to verify
         once again what their sect is

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         From: \"scott stewart\" <stewart@stratfor.com>
         To: \"Middle East AOR\" <mesa@stratfor.com>, \"CT AOR\"
         <ct@stratfor.com>
         Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 9:21:56 AM
         Subject: [MESA] FW: [Analytical & Intelligence Comments] RE:
         Missteps in the Syrian Opposition's Propaganda Effort

         Is this guy correct?

         On 12/15/11 9:58 AM, \"yacoubtaleb@gmail.com\" <yacoubtaleb@gmail.com>
         wrote:

         >yacoubtaleb@gmail.com sent a message using the contact form at
         >https://www.stratfor.com/contact.
         >
         >In your analysis you have mentioned that Assef Shawkat and Ali
         Mamalouk
         >are  
         >Sunni Muslim. That is wrong they both are Alawite. Mistakes like
         that put
         >
         >your credibility in question.
         >
         >
         >
         >
         >Source:  
         >http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20111213-missteps-syrian-oppositions-prop
         >aganda-effort

 --
 Omar Lamrani
 ADP
 STRATFOR
 221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
 Austin, TX 78701
 www.STARTFOR.com

 --
 Omar Lamrani
 ADP
 STRATFOR
 221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400
 Austin, TX 78701
 www.STARTFOR.com

     --
     Nick Grinstead
     Regional Monitor
     STRATFOR
     Beirut, Lebanon
     +96171969463
","2011-12-15 21:10:45",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5501231_re-mesa-fw-analytical-and-intelligence-comments-re-missteps.html","bhalla@stratfor.com","mailto:mesa@stratfor.com","mesa@stratfor.com",""
5502132,"CONFED REMINDER - Brazil Wish List
","   I will be sending the guidance list to our confed partner tomorrow. 
   Thanks to those who have responded.  I've included and example list of
   items at the end of this email. Please feel free to add on to it.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   Hi everyone,

   Yesterday I met with a Brazilian confederation partner, a major newspaper
   here.  Yesterday I met with the main POC as well as the head of the paper
   to discuss how we could make our partnership more productive.

   One of the things the paper requested from us was a list of particular
   items we are interested in.  Our POC is willing to put us in contact to
   the various reporters that are experts in our areas of interest.  These
   people will be available for general chats and also specific questions. 
   So, what I need is a list of items that we are interested in.  They need
   to be a nice balance between specific versus general.

   One we turn this in, they will have a better idea of who to put us in
   touch with.  From there we can send specific questions, for example: how
   will the Chevron spill affect oil regulations?

   Yesterday I met people who can help with macroeconomics/policy,
   infrastructure and Brazilian politics. So, those would be good areas to
   have some items of interest.  This list will be helpful for both the
   cooperation and updating our guidance.  I would like to get this list to
   our POC late Monday of next week or Tuesday at the latest.  

   Thanks,
   Allison

   ECONOMY
   - Policy decision regarding growth, inflation
   - Trade disputes with Argentina
   - Relationship with china; energy investments, dumping goods, industry
   competition

   INFRASTRUCTURE
   - Port modernization projects
   - Measure being implemented to make sure World Cup projects are completed
   on time

   DEFENSE
   - Military exercises along the border
   - 13 treaties with border countries to coordinate efforts in anti-drug
   fight
   - Any pressure on military budgets in the face of financial constratints

   BRAZILIAN POLITICS
   - Jan cabinet reshuffle
   - Outcome and consequences of Para state division vote
","2011-12-05 15:33:37",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5502132_confed-reminder-brazil-wish-list-.html","allison.fedirka@stratfor.com","mailto:econ@stratfor.com","econ@stratfor.com,latam@stratfor.com",""
5505395,"INSIGHT - Pakistan Military attempts to influence US policy - PK700
","   Source Code: PK700
   ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR security source
   SOURCE DESCRIPTION: Former Pakistani intelligence officer
   SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
   ITEM CREDIBILITY: 3
   SOURCE HANDLER: Fred

 Pakistan bashing continues. How convenient it is to ignore the huge size of India cocuss and the campaign funding they receive from India through Indian Americans acting as conduits. No one talks about the covert and overt influence israel enjoys through funding American congressmen and the control Israel has on American policies through coercion and fear of Jewish lobby. Since FBI is involved the blessing of US administration is obvious. Unfortunately this PAK bashing is earning hatred for US in a normally pro US country specially it's Armed Forces. This campaign to browbeat or pressurize Pakistan will have an opposite effect in a society where respect is valued and enmities leave memories for generations
","2011-07-21 00:00:24",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5505395_insight-pakistan-military-attempts-to-influence-us-policy.html","Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com","","zucha@stratfor.com,fred.burton@stratfor.com,watchofficer@stratfor.com",""
5507507,"Re: URS - New GV Business [REVENUE]
","   Thanks, Don.  Much appreciated.
   Anya

   On 8/31/11 4:50 PM, Don Kuykendall wrote:

     Talked to Debora.  Fine and dandy.
     -Don
     Don R. Kuykendall 
     President & Chief Financial Officer 
     STRATFOR 
     512.744.4314 phone 
     512.744.4334 fax 
     kuykendall@stratfor.com 
       
     _______________________ 
       
     http://www.stratfor.com 
     STRATFOR 
     221 W. 6th Street 
     Suite 400 
     Austin, Texas 78701 
     From: Anya Alfano <anya.alfano@stratfor.com>
     Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:35:57 -0400
     To: Debora Wright <wright@stratfor.com>
     Cc: Don Kuykendall <don.kuykendall@stratfor.com>
     Subject: Re: URS - New GV Business [REVENUE]
     Hi Don,
     Per Debora's earlier message, I've copied our draft scope of work for
     the URS work below.  Essentially, the client is interested in having two
     areas of interest covered at all times and then the ability to have a
     third topic of interest that will change through the contract period. 
     We'll need to task the monitors to do some additional work to do
     watching their first topic of interest, but we already cover the second
     topic very well.  The topic that they mentioned as an example of a
     rotating topic of interest was the security situation in Mexico, which
     we also cover well.  

     Please let me know your thoughts on the draft below--I'm also available
     to speak on the phone if you think it would be helpful.
     Thanks,
     Anya

     SCOPE OF WORK  - Global Vantage Services for URS

     STRATFOR will provide URS with continual monitoring of two topics of
     continual concern and one additional topic of concern that will change
     periodically during the term of service. The goal of these monitoring
     services is to provide better understanding of the security environment
     in the areas of interest that could impact URS personnel, facilities,
     operations and interests.

      

                             I.     Standing Issue of Interest - STRATFOR
     will monitor militant threats to URS and other similarly situated
     corporations to determine any change to the level of threat to these
     entities. STRATFOR will alert the client to any emerging threats and
     help the client to determine whether these developments signify a threat
     to their interests.

                            II.     Standing Issue of Interest - STRATFOR
     will monitor security developments--including those stemming from war,
     insurgency and terrorism-- in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan to
     determine if there are changes to the company's baseline threat
     assessment and operational environment in these areas.

                          III.     Rotating Area of Interest - URS will
     determine one rotating area of interest with the ability to change this
     topic once every two months. These areas of interest would primarily
     focus on the security issues present in a single country, with a special
     focus on how security issues impact the business environment. A STRATFOR
     Briefer will work with the client to ensure that the chosen topic of
     interest does not require an extraordinary level of resource usage from
     STRATFOR's intelligence team.

      

     DELIVERABLES

      

     .       Three URS representatives will receive access to a STRATFOR
     Intelligence Briefer who collaborates with the STRATFOR analyst team and
     tracks open source and proprietary global intelligence as it pertains to
     the Scope of Work outlined above:

     -       The Briefer will provide alerts and updates on significant
     developments related to the Scope of Work via email or phone call

     -       The Briefer will also be available for consultation via email or
     phone on strategic questions related to the Scope of Work and can
     provide updates and recommendations during crisis and red alert
     situations.  The Briefer will alert URS if any request requires an
     extraordinary level of monitoring, intelligence resources or research
     and is therefore not included within the scope of this contract

      

     .       Three URS users will receive access to STRATFOR's Enterprise
     database of daily content/archives of global briefings, analysis,
     forecasts, videos and special reports

     On 8/31/11 2:48 PM, Debora Wright wrote:

       Hi Don -

       Anya and I just got off the phone with URS and we are finalizing the
       scope of work/deliverables for this new GV business.  Anya will send
       the scope of work shortly for your review and approval. 

       As a quick reminder, here are the details about this business:

       URS has a budget of $28K, so we have been clear with URS that STRATFOR
       will have to limit the service to meet their budget.  It is basically
       a proof of concept year - so in 6 months, Anya and I will visit with
       them again to consider the success of GV within their organization,
       discuss other topics they may want us to monitor,  and provide pricing
       options for 2012 so they will have ample time to budget for a larger
       purchase of GV Services.
       If you are good with what Anya sends, please let me know so that I may
       forward to the customer, get his approval and close the business.

       Thanks,
       Debora
","2011-08-31 23:00:41",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5507507_re-urs-new-gv-business-revenue-.html","Anya.Alfano@stratfor.com","","kuykendall@stratfor.com,wright@stratfor.com",""
5509401,"Re: Insight--for internal use only--On pain of agony
","   No wonder Medvedev has 2 trips planned to Turkey this spring..... Russia
   will try to take advantage.

   Reva Bhalla wrote:

     yes... turkey isn't only using Iran as the cause for the break. look at
     turkey's public outrage over the Israeli offensive in Gaza as an
     example. Turkey is already pretty tight with Russia, but this doesn't
     mean Turkey has to necessarily get closer to Russia. Turkey will play
     nice with the Russians but also wants to show it can play on its own
     On Feb 20, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

       I meant to say, if not for Iran, would he look for other
       places/weaknesses in the US/Israel relationship to cause a break? 
       And, if he did break with these two, would it mean necessarily that he
       would move closer to Russia?

       Reva Bhalla wrote:

         US and Israel are the ones that matter. it's about redefining
         Turkey's role as an independent power
         On Feb 20, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

           Erdogan is looking to break with the US and Israel?  Are there
           other possible places he could do this, if he is actively trying?

           George Friedman wrote:

             Turkey would break with israel and the united states. It would
             be an opportunity erdogan is looking for. 

             Iran would become more visible but not more powerful. A year
             after the attack its underlying weakness would still be there
             and its dependence on turkey greater. 

             In my view the ourtcome of this is turkish power. But remeber,
             my insight is not that israel will attack. Its that kissinger
             thinks they will attack. Huge difference. 

             $

             Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

             From: \"Kamran Bokhari\" <bokhari@stratfor.com>
             Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:55:16 +0000
             To: Secure List<secure@stratfor.com>
             Subject: Re: Insight--for internal use only--On pain of agony
             All my sources - regardless of factional affiliation - are
             convinced that Iran is preparing for war and one that will make
             the regime more stronger. Did you see Bob Baer make the same
             argument in TIME? Any attack on Iran will make it very difficult
             for Turkey. It will be forced to take a stand against the war
             and there could be trouble with the United States. Such a
             conflict will be a test of Turkey's resurgence and moves towards
             a more independent foreign policy. 

             ---

             Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

             From: \"George Friedman\" <friedman@att.blackberry.net>
             Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:47:49 +0000
             To: Kamran Bokhari<bokhari@stratfor.com>; George
             Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>; Secure
             List<secure@stratfor.com>
             Subject: Re: Insight--for internal use only--On pain of agony
             I believe th us will premempt. But there is no clear time line.

             Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

             From: \"Kamran Bokhari\" <bokhari@stratfor.com>
             Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:43:38 +0000
             To: George Friedman<gfriedman@stratfor.com>; Secure
             List<secure@stratfor.com>
             Subject: Re: Insight--for internal use only--On pain of agony
             Understood. What is your own assessment of the view that the
             Israelis will attack?

             ---

             Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network 

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

             From: George Friedman <gfriedman@stratfor.com>
             Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:41:03 -0600
             To: Secure List<secure@stratfor.com>
             Subject: Insight--for internal use only--On pain of agony
             Internal use only

             Some nuggets from meeting:

             Kissinger believes that the Israelis are in a panic and will
             attack Iran.  Erdogan has made it clear to him that he plans to
             break with Israel at some point and reorient toward the Islamic
             world. He intends to be their leader.  Paul Volcker regards the
             Greek crisis as potentially a mortal blow for the EU. He would
             like to see an IMF tranche.  He also said that Nicholas Brady is
             behind both this and the Volcker principles Obama adopted.  When
             I asked Brady how he expects to get the the U.S. to go along
             with an IMF bailout, he shrugged and said they won't, but that's
             the only choice.  Volcker is now doubtful the Euro can survive. 
             Brady is convinced it will.  Kissinger thinks Volcker and Brady
             are missing the real crisis which is in Iran and potentially
             Russia. Volcker also says that the Bank of England and the
             French will go along with the Volcker rules on an international
             basis--that is returning to a variety of Glass-Steagal.  The
             Japanese will do whatever is said, and in Germany only Deutsche
             Bank really makes decisions. Sarkozy told him he would come in. 
             So there may be an international convention on restructuring
             banks under way--Volcker is pretty careful in what he says and
             doesn't promote himself more than the average bear, so this may
             be the case.  Nick Brady thinks so too.

             Total confusion on situation in China, but more on Obama.  They
             don't understand who is running China policy. The decision to
             meet with the Dalia Lama strikes them as particularly bizarre. 
             But China is the least of the discussion.  It is about Greece
             and Iran.  China is kind of an afterthought.

             I asked Tim Reed who ran Resolution Trust Corporation during the
             S&L crisis under Nick Brady whether a new RTC would have been
             better as a supplement to TARP and he agreed but said that
             Paulsen was so panicked he wasn't thinking and Bernaecke and he
             were just responding.  

             One sense I'm getting here is that the American elite, along
             with Europe's, China's and just about everyone but Russia's his
             suffering from three problems:  First, none are really aware of
             the political pressures on other elites.  Second, they
             completely misunderstand the alienation of the publics, three,
             except for Volcker, they think this can be handled by the elites
             among themselves.  We have a crisis of the elites, in my view.  

             I get to hold forth in an hour or so, and I'm going to argue
             that Iran is going out of control because of the elite crisis. 
             No decision making is going on and the decisions that are being
             made won't be supported in the public. The only country that is
             acting decisively and can do so is Russia.

             This is for our own internal use.  This must not be published or
             discussed outside Stratfor.
             -- 
             George Friedman
             Founder and CEO
             Stratfor
             700 Lavaca Street
             Suite 900
             Austin, Texas 78701
             Phone  512-744-4319
             Fax  512-744-4334

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director, Stratfor
 US Mobile: (512) 422-9335
 China Mobile: (86) 15801890731
 Email: richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com



    

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director, Stratfor
 US Mobile: (512) 422-9335
 China Mobile: (86) 15801890731
 Email: richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com



    

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-02-20 20:37:58",1,"2012-02-27 01:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5509401_re-insight-for-internal-use-only-on-pain-of-agony-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","bokhari@stratfor.com,richmond@stratfor.com,reva.bhalla@stratfor.com,friedman@att.blackberry.net,secure@stratfor.com",""
5509536,"Re: FW: email of Fred Burton
","   Markovski is a huge internet mogul in Bulgaria. He is kinda a strange guy,
   but very powerful in business circles. I've shipped his name to my ppl to
   see if he is hooked into FSB or OC. But he is one of the biggest founders
   of Internet in Bulgaria and the region. I know he has ties into Russia and
   the rest of the CIS.

   To be honest, I can't imagine him having a \"gmail\" account with his own
   name on it. That seems really suspect to me since he is such a powerful
   and rich dude.

   Fred Burton wrote:

      Any idea who these folks are?  Thx  

     -----Original Message-----
     From: veni Markovski [mailto:venimarkovski@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Veni
     Markovski
     Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 4:46 PM
     To: service@stratfor.com
     Subject: email of Fred Burton

     Hi.

     I am looking for the e-mail of Mr. Burton. Would be glad, if you can
     send it.

     Thank you.

     Sincerely,

     Veni Markovski

     Senior Advisor for International Projects
     <http://www.daits.government.bg/>State Agency for IT and Communications
     <http://www.government.bg/>Council of Ministers | REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA
     ----------------
     email: <mailto:veni@veni.com>veni@veni.com | email2:
     <mailto:veni@daits.government.bg>veni@daits.government.bg
     office: +1-646-873-7708 | office2: +359-2-401-8008 | fax:
     +1-212-319-5955 Bulgarian Consulate General, 121 E 62nd Str., New York,
     NY 10021, USA

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2008-08-11 06:38:33",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5509536_re-fw-email-of-fred-burton-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","burton@stratfor.com",""
5511573,"Re: [Military] [Fwd: Wikileaks]
","Yes, same with the FBI. They classify their laundry lists and lunch menus as
Secret. 



-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 12:32 PM
To: Matthew Powers
Cc: Military AOR; scott stewart; 'Tactical'
Subject: Re: [Military] [Fwd: Wikileaks]

Thousands of contractors would have had access to these classifications.

The ONLY classification the CIA uses is SECRET.


Matthew Powers wrote:
> Here are the classifications in the wikileaks docs, the vast majority is
> SECRET:
> 
> CONFIDENTIAL
> NATO CONFIDENTIAL
> NATO CONFIDENTIAL Releasable to GCTF
> NATO/ISAF CONFIDENTIAL REL GCTF, GIRoA
> NATO/ISAF RESTRICTED REL GCTF, GIRoA
> NATO/ISAF SECRET
> NATO/ISAF SECRET REL GIRoA
> SECRET
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> 
> 
> Fred Burton wrote:
>> I understand no TS or SCI was compromised.  SitRep reports mainly.
>>
>> scott stewart wrote:
>>   
>>> Has anyone seen any indication that the Wikileaks material has anything
>>> above secret?  Any TS or SCI material?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Fred Burton [mailto:burton@stratfor.com] 
>>> Sent: Monday, July 26, 2010 12:03 PM
>>> To: Tactical; 'Military AOR'
>>> Subject: Re: [Fwd: Wikileaks]
>>>
>>>
>>> The internal report was marked not only \"secret\" but also \"Noforn\", ie
>>> not to be shared with the foreign elements of the coalition. And the
>>> source of this anxiety is explicit: \"The knowledge that TF 373 conducted
>>> a HIMARS strike must be protected.\" And it was. This crucial fact
>>> remained secret, as did TF 373's involvement.
>>>
>>> Again, the lethal attack caused political problems. The provincial
>>> governor arranged compensation and held a shura with local leaders when,
>>> according to an internal US report, \"he pressed the Talking Points given
>>> to him and added a few of his own that followed in line with our current
>>> story\". Libi remained targeted for death and was killed in Pakistan
>>> seven months later by a missile from an unmanned CIA Predator.
>>>
>>>
>>> Fred Burton wrote:
>>>     
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: 	Wikileaks
>>>> Date: 	Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:06:46 -0400
>>>> From: 	Mike Parks <longbow99@earthlink.net>
>>>> To: 	'Fred Burton' <burton@stratfor.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bunch of DSS surveillance reports (Ambo's detail) in the wikileaks
cache.
>>>>       
> 
> -- 
> Matthew Powers
> STRATFOR Research ADP
> Matthew.Powers@stratfor.com
> 
","2010-07-26 18:40:21",1,"2012-02-28 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5511573_re-military-fwd-wikileaks-.html","scott.stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:military@stratfor.com","burton@stratfor.com,military@stratfor.com,matthew.powers@stratfor.com,tactical@stratfor.com",""
5512760,"[CT] Mexico hippy bombers
","   http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090930_mexico_emergence_unexpected_threat

                   Mexico: Emergence of an Unexpected Threat

     * View
     * Revisions
   September 30, 2009 | 1745 GMT

                           Decrease Text     Normal Text    Increase Text     
   PRINTPRINT Text Resize: Size              Size           Size              

    0 0ShareThis6

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

   Algeria: Taking the Pulse of AQIM

   By Scott Stewart

   At approximately 2 a.m. on Sept. 25, a small improvised explosive device
   (IED) consisting of three or four butane canisters was used to attack a
   Banamex bank branch in the Milpa Alta delegation of Mexico City. The
   device damaged an ATM and shattered the bank's front windows. It was not
   an isolated event. The bombing was the seventh recorded IED attack in the
   Federal District - and the fifth such attack against a local bank branch -
   since the beginning of September.

   The attack was claimed in a communique posted to a Spanish-language
   anarchist Web site by a group calling itself the Subversive Alliance for
   the Liberation of the Earth, Animals and Humans (ASLTAH). The note said,
   \"Once again we have proven who our enemies are,\" indicating that the
   organization's \"cells for the dissolution of civilization\" were behind the
   other, similar attacks. The communique noted that the organization had
   attacked Banamex because it was a \"business that promotes torture,
   destruction and slavery\" and vowed that ASLTAH would not stop attacking
   \"until we see your ashes.\" The group closed its communique by sending
   greetings to the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), the Animal Liberation Front
   (ALF) and the \"eco-pyromaniacs for the liberation of the earth in this
   place.\" Communiques have also claimed some of the other recent IED attacks
   in the name of ASLTAH.

   On Sept. 22, authorities also discovered and disabled a small IED left
   outside of a MetLife insurance office in Guadalajara, Jalisco state. A
   message spray-painted on a wall near where the device was found read,
   \"Novartis stop torturing animals,\" a reference to the multinational
   pharmaceutical company, which has an office near where the IED was found
   and which has been heavily targeted by the group Stop Huntingdon Animal
   Cruelty (SHAC). Novartis is a large customer of Huntingdon Life Sciences,
   the research company SHAC was formed to destroy because Huntingdon uses
   animals in its testing for harmful side effects of drugs, chemicals and
   consumer items. A second message spray-painted on a wall near where the
   device was found on Sept. 22 read, \"Novartis break with HLS.\" Two other
   IEDs were detonated at banks in Mexico City on the same day.

   These IED attacks are the most recent incidents in a wave of anarchist,
   animal rights, and eco-protest attacks that have swept across Mexico this
   year. Activists have conducted literally hundreds of incidents of
   vandalism, arson and, in more recent months, IED attacks in various
   locations across the country. The most active cells are in Mexico City and
   Guadalajara.

   For a country in the midst of a bloody cartel war in which thousands of
   people are killed every year - and where serious crimes
   like kidnapping terrorize nearly every segment of society - direct-action
   attacks by militant activists are hardly the biggest threat faced by the
   Mexican government. However, the escalation of direct-action attacks in
   Mexico that has resulted in the more frequent use of IEDs shows no sign of
   abating, and these attacks are likely to grow more frequent, spectacular
   and deadly.

  The Wave

   Precisely quantifying the wave of direct-action attacks in Mexico is
   difficult for a number of reasons. One is that the reporting of such
   incidents is spotty and the police, the press and the activists themselves
   are often not consistent in what they report and how. Moreover, is often
   hard to separate direct-action vandalism from incidents of plain old
   non-political vandalism or tell the difference between an anarchist IED
   attack against a bank and an IED attack against a bank conducted by
   a Marxist group such as the Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR). Then there
   is the issue of counting. Should a series of five Molotov cocktail attacks
   against ATMs or the destruction of 20 Telmex phone booths in one night be
   counted as one attack or as separate incidents?

   If we count conservatively - e.g., consider a series of like incidents as
   one - we can say there have been around 200 direct-action attacks to date
   in 2009. But if we count each incident separately, we can easily claim
   there have been more than 400 such attacks. For example, by our count,
   there have been more than 350 Telmex phone booths smashed, burned or
   otherwise vandalized so far this year. (Activists will do things like glue
   metal shavings into the calling-card and coin slots.) However, for the
   sake of this analysis we'll go with the conservative number of about 200
   attacks.

   Now, Telmex seems to be the most popular target so far for direct-action
   attacks. In addition to hitting phone booths, activists also have attacked
   Telmex vehicles and offices and have cut Telmex cables. From their
   statements, the activists appear to hold a special hatred for Carlos Slim,
   one of the richest men in the world and the chairman of Telmex and several
   other companies. In many ways, Slim - a patriarchal billionaire
   industrialist - is the personification of almost everything that the
   anarchistic activists hate. In addition to Telmex and banks, the activists
   also have attacked other targets such as restaurants (including McDonald's
   and KFC), meat shops, pet shops, fur and leather stores, luxury vehicles,
   and construction equipment.

   The activists' most common tactics tend to be on the lower end of the
   violence scale and include graffiti and paint (frequently red to symbolize
   the blood of animals) to vandalize a target. They also frequently release
   captive birds or animals as well as use superglue and pieces of metal to
   obstruct locks, pay phones and ATM card readers. Moving up the violence
   continuum, activists less frequently will break windows, burn buildings
   and vehicles, and make bomb threats - there have been at least 157
   incidents involving arson or incendiary devices so far in 2009. To help
   put this into perspective, these activists have conducted more arson
   attacks in Mexico to date in 2009 than their American counterparts have
   conducted in the United States since 2001.

   At the high end of the violence spectrum are the IED attacks, and this is
   where there has really been an increase in activity in recent weeks. In
   the first six months of 2009, there were several bomb threats and hoaxes
   and a few acid bombs, but only two real IEDs were used. In June, July and
   August there was one IED attack per month - and so far in September there
   have been seven IED attacks in Mexico City alone and one successful attack
   and one attempted attack in Guadalajara. Again, by way of comparison,
   these eight IED attacks by Mexican activists in September are more than
   American activists have conducted in the United States since 2001.

  Proliferation of IEDs

   There are several factors that can explain this trend toward the
   activists' increasing use of IEDs. The first is, quite simply, that IEDs
   generate more attention than graffiti, glue or even an arson attack -
   indeed, here we are devoting a weekly security report to activist IED
   attacks in Mexico. In light of the overall level of violence in Mexico,
   most observers have ignored the past lower-level activity by these
   activist groups, and IEDs help cut through the noise and bring attention
   to the activists' causes. The scope and frequency of IED attacks this
   month ensured that they could not be overlooked.

   The second factor is the learning curve of the cells' bombmakers. As a
   bombmaker becomes more proficient in his tradecraft, the devices he crafts
   tend to become both more reliable and more powerful. The improvement in
   tradecraft also means that the bombmaker is able to increase his
   operational tempo and deploy devices more frequently. It is quite possible
   that the few IEDs that were reported as hoaxes in March, April and May
   could have been IEDs that did not function properly - a common occurrence
   for new bombmakers who do not extensively test their devices.

   The third factor is thrill and ego. In many past cases, militant activists
   have launched progressively larger attacks. One reason for this is that
   after a series of direct-action attacks, the activists get bored doing
   lower-level things like gluing locks or paint-stripping cars and they move
   to more destructive and spectacular attacks, such as those using timed
   incendiary devices. For many activists, there is a thrill associated with
   getting increased attention for the cause, in causing more damage to their
   targets and in getting away with increasingly brazen attacks.

   Finally, in recent years, we have noted a shift among activist groups away
   from a strict concern for human life. Many activists are becoming
   convinced that less violent tactics have been ineffective, and if they
   really want to save the Earth and animals, they need to take more
   aggressive action. There is a small but growing fringe of hard-core
   activists who believe that, to paraphrase Lenin, you have to break eggs to
   make an omelet.

   The Ruckus Society, a direct-action activist training organization,
   explains it this way in a training document: \"There is a law against
   breaking into a house. However, if you break into a house as part of a
   greater good, such as rushing into the house to save a child from a fire,
   it is permissible to break that law. In fact, you can say that there is
   even a moral obligation to break that law. In the same way then, it is
   permissible to break minor laws to save the Earth.\" In general, activists
   do not condone violent action directed at humans, but neither do they
   always condemn it in very strong terms - they often explain that the anger
   that prompts such violence is \"understandable\" in light of what they
   perceive as ecological injustice and cruelty to animals.

   In recent years there has been a polarization in the animal rights and
   environmental movements, with fringe activists becoming increasingly
   isolated and violent - and more likely to use potentially deadly tools
   like IEDs in their attacks.

  Confluences

   The very name of ASLTAH - the Subversive Alliance for the Liberation of
   the Earth, Animals and Humans - illustrates the interesting confluence of
   animal rights, ecological activism and anti-imperialism/anarchism that
   inhabit the radical fringe. It is not uncommon for one cell of independent
   activists to claim it carried out its attacks under the banner of
   \"organizations\" such as ELF, ALF or SHAC. In true anarchistic style,
   however, these organizations are amorphous and nonhierarchical - there is
   no single ELF, ALF or SHAC. Rather, the individual activists and cells who
   act on behalf of the organizations control their own activities while
   adhering to guidelines circulated in meetings and conferences, via the
   Internet, and in various magazines, newsletters and other publications.
   These individual activists and cells are driven only by their consciences,
   or by group decisions within the cell. This results in a level of
   operational security that can be hard for law enforcement and security
   officials to breach.

   As noted above, these activists have been far more active in Mexico than
   they have in the United States. One reason for this is that the operating
   environment north of the border is markedly different than it is in
   Mexico. In the United States, the FBI and local and state police agencies
   have focused hard on these activists, and groups like ELF and ALF have
   been branded as domestic terrorists. There have been several major
   investigations into these groups in recent years.

   South of the border it is a different matter. Mexican authorities are
   plagued with problems ranging from drug cartels to Marxist
   terrorist/insurgent groups like the EPR to rampant police and government
   corruption. Simply put, there is a vacuum of law and order in Mexico and
   that vacuum is clearly reflected in statistics such as the number of
   kidnappings inside the country every year. The overall level of violence
   in Mexico and this vacuum of authority provide room for the activists to
   operate, and the host of other crime and violence issues plaguing the
   country works to ensure that the authorities are simply too busy to place
   much emphasis on investigating activist attacks and catching those
   responsible for them. Therefore, the activists operate boldly and with a
   sense of impunity that often leads to an increase in violence - especially
   within the context of a very violent place, which Mexico is at the present
   time.

   This atmosphere means that the activist cells behind the increase in IED
   attacks will be able to continue their campaigns against assorted
   capitalist, animal and ecological targets with very little chance of being
   seriously pursued. Consequently, as the IED campaign continues, the
   attacks will likely become more frequent and more destructive. And given
   Mexico's densely populated cities and the activists' target sets, this
   escalation will ensure that the attacks will eventually turn deadly.

   Read more: Mexico: Emergence of an Unexpected Threat | STRATFOR 
","2011-12-12 15:33:57",1,"2012-02-27 12:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5512760_-ct-mexico-hippy-bombers-.html","stewart@stratfor.com","mailto:ct@stratfor.com","ct@stratfor.com",""
5513222,"Re: Watch officers - Please read
","   This is good stuff, Karen. Looking at this it is clear we need to do a
   better job of sending stuff to GV alerts - it makes it to OS (meaning
   monitors are doing their jobs) but not to gvalerts (shame on us). I
   commented on three below, but the point remains that we're missing GV-able
   items. The simplest solution is probably just WOs taking more time to
   become familiar with the client list so that we recognize GV items quickly
   when we're in a hurry.

   I think the breakdown of misses is very helpful. Perhaps as Orit suggested
   we should do this regularly - evaluate the previous shift's work each
   shift? This would be brutal, but it would also be a good exercise (both
   for the person being evaluated and the person doing the evaluating).
   Looking back when there is more time to consider each item, it is easier
   to see my mistakes and as such I'm much less likely to make them again.
   The evaluations would be up for comment by any of the WOs, which would
   help us improve as well. I'll (sheepishly) offer my shift today as the
   first for evaluation if Karen thinks she'll have time to grade me tonight.
   Karen, if you do, go for it - it's nighttime in Orit-land so we probably
   won't hear from her for several more hours. Probably we would only need to
   do this for a week more or less, but it wouldn't have to be a permanent
   fixture as it could become quite time-consuming.

   Here's to more effective WOs!
   Orit Gal-Nur wrote:

     These graphs definitely help us see the layout of our coverage.  It's
     also something we can do every two weeks to monitor AOR coverage from
     the OS and Alerts lists.  But we also need to consider that some of the
     AORs will have more reppable items, such as the Middle East and Europe. 
     Agree on this. Latam is important for mining/lng/oil issues for clients,
     but these don't always make it to reps.
     One side note about the list you compiled below, is it possible that my
     OS box differs from yours?  In my thunderbird, one item on the list
     below was forwarded to alerts, and a few others did not show up at all
     in OS (I don't delete anything from OS). 
     While a crucial aspect of our job is speed, sometimes it's hard to
     balance this with accuracy.  As Karen mentioned, the double and triple
     fact checking is mandatory, but it can slow us in tackling the OS in a
     timely manner.  Sometimes during the quick decision making in whether to
     rep or not, I pass a potential rep only to rep it later after reading
     another article and either seeing it a different perspective or with
     just different wording. Agreed on this, too. We should be fast, but we
     should also be accurate. The solution is to get better at both.
     We need to have exercises that allow us to look critically at our work. 
     One might be the graph below, done on a consistent basis, to see how our
     sweeping and repping is covered.  Another exercise could be to compare
     the time frames from certain days as Karen did, giving us each a chance
     to analyze the lists and eachothers'  repping mistakes.  This type of
     feedback and learning will spread to all aspects of the job and
     influence all our decision making.
     Thanks Karen, this is a good start.

     Karen Hooper wrote:

       Hi all,

       It is clear that we need more accountability and discussion of the
       principles that drive Watch Officer decision-making at Stratfor. Below
       is my own evaluation of the relationship between the OS list and the
       Alerts list between 5 am cst and 1 pm cst Feb. 4. During that time,
       there were a total of 24 items sent to the alerts list and 20 items
       sent to the gvalerts list. There were only three items sent to the GV
       alerts list between 7 am CST and 8 pm CST yesterday, which is a
       problem.

       The alerts list is closer to where it ought to be, but we may have
       missed a few items that should at the very least be brought to the
       attention of the company. We are also just not as fast as we could be.
       I know that I sometimes get caught up in sweeping, consulting with
       monitors and analysts, and double and triple checking things before i
       rep them, which puts me in a position where I've not forwarded alert
       items the list as fast as I ought to. This is something we all need to
       be acutely aware of -- we have to be reactive, and we must err on the
       side of overreaction.

       At the very bottom of this email is a graph showing our sitrepping
       patterns over the last two weeks. The data only include weekdays, and
       do double-count reps that qualify for more than one AOR. I'm not sure
       what is to be learned from it, except our sitrep coverage of Latin
       America is decidedly less than awesome and our coverage of East Asia
       is spotty. Latin America is pretty internally focused right now, but
       we need at the very  least to be picking up the cartel violence. I
       will take the lead on talking to our two monitors who touch on latam
       and putting together some tactical guidance for WOs and Monitors.

       To date, we've been really focused on the monitors, getting them up to
       speed, working out scheduling, etc. It's definitely time that we took
       a look at our own performance, and we need to be thinking about ways
       that we can improve our consistency, speed and thoroughness. Reva has
       pointed out the need to be more careful in our highlighting process,
       which is something she sees easily, first thing in the morning. But we
       are the only ones who can easily go through the OS list -- and we
       should do so in with the aim of keeping each other honest.

       By controlling the flow of information, the watch officers hold the
       family jewels of the company. This will become increasingly true, and
       it's our job to make the right call, every time.

       Below is the result of a sample i took from 5 am CST to 1 pm CST. The
       lists below are of items that probably should have been sent to alerts
       or GValerts:

       GV:
       [OS] TURKEY/ENERGY - Ankara delays natural gas tender for March 14
       [OS] ENERGY - Trans-Black Sea pipeline studies under way
       [OS] UAE/IB - Abu Dhabi plans investment of $280 bln
       [OS] KUWAIT/KSA/ENERGY - Kuwait,    Saudi to increase Neutral Zone oil
       capacity
       [OS] LITHUANIA/POLAND/SWEDEN/ENERGY - Seimas passes nuclear bill I may
       be overlooking something, but I don't see that this one should have
       been GVd.
       [OS] NORWAY/ENERGY - Turbine fire shuts down 20, 000 barrel per day
       Njord A oil platform off Norwa
       [OS] RUSSIA/SOMALIA/CT - Pirates seize Russians, British man off
       Somalia (More details) A similar article was sent to gvalerts prior to
       this one. But it raised a question in my mind - what kinds of updates
       do we need for GV items? So I asked Joe. He says there's no need to
       update a story unless it changes the fundamentals or a briefer
       contacts the WO to say it is important enough to a client to warrant
       tracking more minute changes.
       [OS] ANGOLA/SOUTH AFRICA/IB - Angolan mining potential in focus in
       South Africa I don't think this one needed to be sent to GValerts. The
       only new information is that a presentation is being given.
       S2 - NIGERIA/CT - Rebels claim Nigerian oil delta attack
       [OS] BRAZIL/TURKEY/ENERGY/IB - Petrobras, Turkiye Petrolleri Find
       Black Sea Oil, Referans Says
       [OS] CHINA/IB - Copper Rises as Costs May Curb China's Output; Nickel
       Declines
       [OS] SERBIA/US/PP/IB - Serbia, US Steel sign environmental protection
       deal
       [OS] COLOMBIA/ENERGY - Colombia To Auction Rights To Seek Oil In 151
       Blocks In 2008
       [OS] FRANCE/VENEZUELA/ENERGY/IB - Total Signs 2 Heavy Oil Study Deals
       With PDVSA
       [OS] IB - Airbus Completes First Civil Aircraft Test Flight With
       Alternative Fuel

       Alerts:
       [OS] IRAQ/IRAN/ENERGY - Baghdad protests against Iranian violations of
       Iraqi oilfields
       [OS] JAPAN/CHINA/IB - Japan sends mission to China over food poisoning
       incidents
       [OS] CHAD/CT/UN - EU Chad mission suspended but will go ahead-Solana
       [OS] US/MIL/CT- U.S. Citizen in Singapore Accused of Selling Military
       Hardware to Iran [It was too old to rep, but it should have been sent
       out]
       [OS] IB - White House Budget Request
       [OS] FRANCE/VENEZUELA/ENERGY/IB - Total Signs 2 Heavy Oil Study Deals
       With PDVSA
       [OS] ITALY - Berlusconi Rejects Government as Early Election Looms

       Other issues:
       [OS] EGYPT/GAZA/CT - Palestinian gunfire wounds 2 Egyptian policemen 
       [this was sent to the OS list three times, it was repped over an hour
       after it was first sent to the list]
       [OS] COLOMBIA/CT - Colombians in anti-Farc protests [i repped this
       later, when the numbers were made clear (half a million protesters),
       but it was still pretty impt when sent out at the beginning of the
       day]
       [OS] SPAIN/CT - Spanish police arrest Basque separatists [This was
       repped, but not until an hour after it was sent to the OS list]
       INDIA/MALAYSIA - India, Malaysia seeking ways to join hands in
       fighting terror  [this should have been resent to the OS list with a
       CT tag]

       Sitrepping by AOR over the past two weeks:

                Feb.  Feb.  Jan.  Jan.  Jan.  Jan.  Jan.  Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. 
                4     1     31    30    29    28    25    24   23   22   21   
       East         3     6     5     7     3    16     4    3    8    6    8 
       Asia     
       Middle      15    15     7     8     8    17    15   11   17   14   12 
       East     
       Latin        3     4     3     3     3     2     2    1    3    4    6 
       America  
       South        6     9    11     4     5     6    11    6   11   10    5 
       Asia     
       Africa       6     8     6     2     5     1     5    1    7    3    6 
       Europe       6     7     4     8     6     3    16    9    7    9    8 
       FSU          3     5     6     7     6     9     9   11    7    6    4 

 --
 Orit Gal-Nur
 Watch Officer
 Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
 orit.gal-nur@stratfor.com

  

 --
 Thomas Davison
 Watch Officer
 Stratfor
 (512) 366-0196
","2008-02-05 20:06:05",1,"2012-02-27 02:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5513222_re-watch-officers-please-read-.html","davison@stratfor.com","","hooper@stratfor.com,watchofficer@stratfor.com,orit.gal-nur@stratfor.com",""
5513250,"For the New-Terns
","","2008-06-27 20:58:41",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5513250_for-the-new-terns-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","eurasia@stratfor.com","attach/126/126613_FSU sweep list.doc
attach/126/126616_GV Client List for Team.doc
attach/177/177181_GEOPOLITICAL IMPERATIVE - RUSSIA.doc"
5514431,"Re: cybersecurity
","   Hello Veni!

   Sorry for my late reply, as I've been traveling recently.

   I would like to put you in touch with Mr. Nathan Hughes our Security and
   Military analyst. He is highly concentrated on the wars in the world
   (didn't you say you had some friends in Afghanistan ;-) ). But he lead our
   security group's assessment of cybersecurity. His email address is
   Nathan.Hughes@Stratfor.com and I have spoken with him about your possible
   contact. He is also located in DC if you ever wanted to grab a coffee.

   Speaking of DC, I shall be making my way up there soon, will you be in the
   neighborhood in the next week or two?
   Other than that, everything is going well. I am about to publish a series
   on Russia's \"to-do\" list on relationships with countries it has created
   and still needs to forge. I think you will find it very interesting.

   Speak with you soon!
   Lauren

   Veni Markovski wrote:

     Hi, Lauren.
     Could you put me in touch with the people who do your cybersecurity
     stuff?

     Hope you are fine? How's work? Home?

     best,
     veni

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2010-02-21 20:59:01",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5514431_re-cybersecurity-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","Lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com,veni@veni.com",""
5514758,"[Fwd: For the New-Tern]
","","2008-08-19 19:01:46",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5514758_-fwd-for-the-new-tern-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","goodrich@stratfor.com","attach/126/126613_FSU sweep list.doc
attach/126/126616_GV Client List for Team.doc
attach/174/174277_FSU sites.doc
attach/175/175579_GEOPOLITICAL IMPERATIVE - RUSSIA.doc"
5514984,"[Eurasia] FOR NEW-TERN CATHERINE
","9","2009-01-06 04:37:37",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5514984_-eurasia-for-new-tern-catherine-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","mailto:eurasia@stratfor.com","eurasia@stratfor.com,catherine.durbin@stratfor.com","attach/126/126613_FSU sweep list.doc
attach/126/126616_GV Client List for Team.doc
attach/174/174276_FSU Parliaments.doc
attach/174/174277_FSU sites.doc
attach/175/175579_GEOPOLITICAL IMPERATIVE - RUSSIA.doc"
5515132,"[Fwd: New-tern info]
","2","2008-09-03 16:48:06",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5515132_-fwd-new-tern-info-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","goodrich@stratfor.com","attach/126/126613_FSU sweep list.doc
attach/126/126616_GV Client List for Team.doc
attach/174/174277_FSU sites.doc
attach/175/175579_GEOPOLITICAL IMPERATIVE - RUSSIA.doc"
5519962,"Re: running about 7-8 minutes late -
","   oh yes... and I am not in my office. I shall be back in 10 min. Call me
   then?
   I apologize for the inconvenience and mix-up.

   Veni Markovski wrote:

     I just realized that we might have had the wrong 3 p.m. I was calling at
     3 p.m. EST, and you may be one hour behind?

     veni

     Lauren Goodrich wrote:

       sounds good... we'll talk to you soon.

       Veni Markovski wrote:

         sorry!

       -- 
       Lauren Goodrich
       Director of Analysis
       Senior Eurasia Analyst
       *STRATFOR
       *T: 512.744.4311
       F: 512.744.4334
       lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
       www.stratfor.com

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2009-07-24 21:20:00",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5519962_re-running-about-7-8-minutes-late-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","veni@veni.com",""
5521421,"Re: note from Yemeni diplomatic source
","   Pinged.

   On 1/3/2011 11:24 AM, scott stewart wrote:

     Kamran,

      

     Can you ask ISI for confirmation?

      

     If he was really in Pakistan, it would either indicate closer
     coordination that we had thought - or that the pressure on AQAP is
     greater than we had thought.

      

     Still, there is a pretty robust leadership cadre in AQAP, so his loss
     would not be all that great, even if he really were killed in Pakistan.

      

      

      

     From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com
     [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com] On Behalf Of Michael Wilson
     Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 11:02 AM
     To: Analyst List
     Subject: Re: note from Yemeni diplomatic source

      

     here is the original btw

     Bin Laden aide killed in U.S. drone attack in Pakistan: officials+
     Jan 2 07:38 PM US/Eastern
     http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9KGHKT80&show_article=1
     ISLAMABAD, Jan. 3 (AP) - (Kyodo)-Nasir al Wahishi, a Yemeni national who
     reportedly served as an aide of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden, was
     killed in a U.S. drone attack in northwestern Pakistan late last year,
     Pakistani security officials said Sunday.

     The officials, who sought anonymity, said Wahishi, 32, was killed on
     Dec. 28 when two missiles were fired on a militant camp at the Ghulam
     Khan sub-district of North Waziristan.

     The officials claimed Wahishi had served as personal assistant of bin
     Laden until 2000.

     On 1/3/11 9:17 AM, Reva Bhalla wrote:

     Pakistani Intelligence leaked news of a drone strike killing Nasir
     Wahayshi, Emir of AQAP in Pakistan....
     Lol early aprils fool... first they said fad quso was  eliminated
      now this

     http://ibnlive.in.com/news/osamas-top-aide-of-killed-in-drone-strike/139261-2.html

     I apologize If I made any spelling or grammar mistakes
                                       .iPad message.

 --

 Michael Wilson

 Senior Watch Officer, STRATFOR

 Office: (512) 744 4300 ex. 4112

 Email: michael.wilson@stratfor.com

  

   --
","2011-01-03 17:33:58",1,"2012-02-27 15:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5521421_re-note-from-yemeni-diplomatic-source-.html","bokhari@stratfor.com","mailto:analysts@stratfor.com","analysts@stratfor.com","attach/6/6434_Signature.JPG"
5522604,"Re: [Eurasia] Fwd: [OS] BELARUS/ITALY - Italy's Berlusconi visit
 ends Belarus isolation
","   italy is becoming a Russia-annex ;)

   Matthew Powers wrote:

     Berlusconi's quotes at the beginning of the article are great.  Italy
     has been very active lately in FSU, seems like they are making a big
     push to increase their presence there.

     ----- Forwarded Message -----
     From: \"Matthew Powers\" <matthew.powers@stratfor.com>
     To: \"os\" <os@stratfor.com>
     Sent: Monday, November 30, 2009 1:23:11 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
     Subject: [OS] BELARUS/ITALY - Italy's Berlusconi visit ends Belarus
     isolation

     Italy's Berlusconi visit ends Belarus isolation

     By Olga Nedbayeva (AFP) - 35 minutes ago 11-30-09

     http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iyrJcH3fsFZ8JU1V4g8xx5M7eVmA

     MINSK - Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi described Belarus
     strongman Alexander Lukashenko as 'loved' by his people Monday as he
     became the first Western leader to visit the reclusive state in 15
     years.

     Belarussians \"love you, which is shown by the elections,\" Berlusconi
     told President Lukashenko, who is often accused of human rights abuses
     and election rigging, in a declaration after talks on Monday.

     In turn, Lukashenko praised Berlusconi, currently battling accusations
     of links with the mafia and mired in sex scandals, as \"a global,
     planetary man of politics, our friend.\"

     Berlusconi's day-long visit to the former Soviet republic brought to an
     end the diplomatic isolation imposed on Belarus by the West over its
     multiple abuses of human rights after Lukashenko came to power in 1994.

     Lukashenko acknowledged the significance of the visit, telling
     Berlusconi that, \"We consider your visit not only in the context of
     bilateral relations but also as eloquent support of our country on the
     international scene.\"

     The visit focused on strengthening business ties.

     \"Our relations are not what they could be.There is potential,\"
     Berlusconi said, adding that Italy is in 15th place among foreign
     investors in Belarus.

     \"Berlusconi has unique personal contacts that contribute to the
     development of geopolitical contacts. He visits Russia and the Arab
     world,\" Lukashenko's spokesman Pavel Lyogky told journalists before the
     talks.

     The visit saw the signing of a draft agreement between Italian
     engineering group Finmeccanica and the Belarussian government. The
     leaders also agreed on the creation of a joint industrial zone in the
     town of Brest.

     In a diplomatic move, Lukashenko handed over KGB archives on Italian
     prisoners of war who were captured in Belarus.

     Last year the European Union softened its stance on Belarus and lifted a
     travel ban on Lukashenko and other Belarussian officials, in what was
     seen as a new strategy of engagement with the country.

     Berlusconi's visit came in response to Lukashenko's visit to Rome in
     April. The Italian premier said then that the time had come for Belarus
     to emerge from its isolation.

     Lukashenko has previously received political leaders with an
     anti-Western stance such as Libyan leader Colonel Moamer Kadhafi,
     Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

     The Belarussian leader was elected with a huge majority, but has a
     record of jailing opposition politicians, imposing severe restrictions
     on rallies and blocking any criticism in the state-controlled media.

     Belarussian opposition leader Anatoly Lebedko, head of the United Civil
     Party of Belarus, expressed doubts that the visit would promote
     democratic values in Belarus.

     \"Berlusconi is a colourful politician. He resembles Lukashenko, he has a
     spirit of political adventure,\" Lebedko told AFP.

     \"He is coming to Belarus as a businessman. For him, everything is for
     sale at a price, even if this requires him to sacrifice European
     values.\"

     Belarus is the only country in the European continent not to be part of
     the Council of Europe, after it was booted out in 1997 over multiple
     violations.

     It is a member of the EU's newly-formed Eastern Partnership programme,
     which is intended to regulate relations between the European Union and
     former Soviet states.

     The detente in EU-Belarussian ties comes as Belarus has regularly
     quarrelled with its traditional ally, Russia, in recent years, and
     Lukashenko has exchanged cutting remarks with Russian leaders.

     Matthew Powers
     STRATFOR Intern
     matthew.powers@stratfor.com
     matthew.powers

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2009-11-30 20:26:31",1,"2012-03-02 13:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5522604_re-eurasia-fwd-os-belarus-italy-italy-s-berlusconi-visit.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","eurasia@stratfor.com",""
5528818,"New-tern Info...
","","2009-05-11 22:15:18",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5528818_new-tern-info-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","marko.papic@stratfor.com,robert.reinfrank@stratfor.com","attach/126/126613_FSU sweep list.doc
attach/126/126614_Team Eurasia 090302.xls
attach/126/126615_READING LIST.doc
attach/126/126616_GV Client List for Team.doc"
5529333,"Re: Research Task - Shady Bulgarian.
","   that is good enough... thanks much darlin!

   Antonia Colibasanu wrote:

     nothing in the media or elsewhere that could link him to FSB or OC -
     that's after a quick research done. Will continue digging on this one
     but the guy has also wanted to become mayor of Sofia so I guess that at
     least rumors should have been said if he was linked to OC. Anyways, will
     let you know if I get anything else on the guy. here's his personal
     page: http://www.veni.com/cv.html

     Lauren Goodrich wrote:

       Hey missy,

       Will you do me a favor tonight/tomorrow and check into this guy: Veni
       Markovski. He has his own wikipedia page
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veni_Markovski. Was wondering if he has
       OC or FSB connections.

       I don't need an in depth search, but any flags you find would be
       helpful. It is not a client project, but a security problem for us.

       Thanks!

       Lauren
       --

       Lauren Goodrich
       Director of Analysis
       Senior Eurasia Analyst
       Stratfor
       Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
       T: 512.744.4311
       F: 512.744.4334
       lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
       www.stratfor.com

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2008-08-11 15:15:40",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5529333_re-research-task-shady-bulgarian-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","colibasanu@stratfor.com,brycerogers@stratfor.com",""
5529417,"Greetings from Stratfor
","   Mr. Markovski,
    
   Fred Burton passed along your information to me, saying you were
   interested in speaking to someone at Stratfor who deals with the region.
   Sorry for the delay in contacting you, but the war took all my attention I
   admit.
    
   I am the Senior Eurasia analyst and admit to having recognized your name
   off the bat. I know you do much business all around Eurasia, especially
   Eastern Europe and Russia. I would love to hear your thoughts on the
   recent events, especially since you are so deeply hooked into the region.
    
   Let me know when you would like to chat; my email and contact number is
   below.
    
   Cheers,
   Lauren
   --
   Lauren E. Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2008-08-14 20:46:07",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5529417_greetings-from-stratfor-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","goodrich@stratfor.com,veni@veni.com",""
5536407,"Re: FW: email of Fred Burton
","   Okay, heard back from my side.
   He is hooked into the Bulgairan OC, but nothing too shady bout that since
   he is Bulgarian.
   He is not hooked into the Russians either through OC or FSB.

   Fred Burton wrote:

     Thank you

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------

     From: Lauren Goodrich [mailto:goodrich@stratfor.com]
     Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 11:39 PM
     To: Fred Burton
     Subject: Re: FW: email of Fred Burton
     Markovski is a huge internet mogul in Bulgaria. He is kinda a strange
     guy, but very powerful in business circles. I've shipped his name to my
     ppl to see if he is hooked into FSB or OC. But he is one of the biggest
     founders of Internet in Bulgaria and the region. I know he has ties into
     Russia and the rest of the CIS.

     To be honest, I can't imagine him having a \"gmail\" account with his own
     name on it. That seems really suspect to me since he is such a powerful
     and rich dude.

     Fred Burton wrote:

        Any idea who these folks are?  Thx  

       -----Original Message-----
       From: veni Markovski [mailto:venimarkovski@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
       Veni Markovski
       Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 4:46 PM
       To: service@stratfor.com
       Subject: email of Fred Burton

       Hi.

       I am looking for the e-mail of Mr. Burton. Would be glad, if you can
       send it.

       Thank you.

       Sincerely,

       Veni Markovski

       Senior Advisor for International Projects
       <http://www.daits.government.bg/>State Agency for IT and
       Communications <http://www.government.bg/>Council of Ministers |
       REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA
       ----------------
       email: <mailto:veni@veni.com>veni@veni.com | email2:
       <mailto:veni@daits.government.bg>veni@daits.government.bg
       office: +1-646-873-7708 | office2: +359-2-401-8008 | fax:
       +1-212-319-5955 Bulgarian Consulate General, 121 E 62nd Str., New
       York, NY 10021, USA

     --

     Lauren Goodrich
     Director of Analysis
     Senior Eurasia Analyst
     Stratfor
     Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
     T: 512.744.4311
     F: 512.744.4334
     lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
     www.stratfor.com

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2008-08-11 15:15:23",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5536407_re-fw-email-of-fred-burton-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","burton@stratfor.com",""
5537607,"Re: FW: Hi
","   I'll ping him... he's a straaaaange man & could be interesting.

   Fred Burton wrote:

 
 Any interest in talking to him? 

 -----Original Message-----
 From: Veni Markovski [mailto:veni@veni.com]
 Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 8:39 AM
 To: Fred Burton
 Subject: Re: Hi

 Hi.
 I saw Strafor's George Fridman being quoted in the New York Times on the
 situation in Georgia, and that triggered my interest, as I have a lot of
 contacts on different levels in Russia/CIS/Black Sea region.
 I would be thankful if you could point me to someone at Stratfor, who is
 dealing with the region, so that we can exchange some information, and see
 if there might be potential for some future cooperation.

 Would it be possible to talk to someone over the phone? My phone is
 646-873-7708

 Thanks.


  

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2008-08-12 18:51:08",1,"2012-02-29 11:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5537607_re-fw-hi-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","burton@stratfor.com,zeihan@stratfor.com",""
5537645,"Re: INSIGHT - CHINA/KAZAKH - New Uranium Deals in Kazakhstan
","   Russia owns much of Kaz's uranium industry. Russia struck quite a few
   deals with China a few years back on jointly develpoing Kaz uranium.

   Matt Gertken wrote:

     Kazakhstan is counterbalancing Russia with deals like this uranium mine
     deal, I agree. But I'm not sure about China being so much more confident
     about their inroads to Kazakhstan -- why would the Chinese proceed with
     overoptimism, having seen Russia's willingness to exert itself and
     reclaim areas of past influence? won't Russia try to shorten Astana's
     leash at some point?

     Ultimately, will Moscow simply have to accept Beijing's dominance in
     purchasing Kazak's resources, or will there be a clash down the road
     when competition becomes fiercer?

     Jennifer Richmond wrote:

       SOURCE: CN65
       ATTRIBUTION: Ex-govt Aussie Source
       SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian State Senator
       PUBLICATION: Background
       SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
       ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1
       DISTRIBUTION: Analysts, EA, Central Asia
       SPECIAL HANDLING: None

       I think the source got this from some OS press (with his own
       interpretation of events), but he is in the know on Chinese resource
       deals and says he can get more if we are interested.  If so, please
       send me specific questions.

       I don't know if you guys saw, but the Chinese have this month acquired
       large stakes in the uranium mining and downstream uranium industry in
       Kazakhstan.

       CGNPC has taken a 49% interest in two mines run by Kazatomprom. CNNC
       has also taken a 49% interest in another Kazakh company that will do
       conversion and possibly processing.

       Obviously these conjoined deals have a lot of implications. First,
       China is feeling much more confident in Central Asia, and Central Asia
       is feeling much more comfortable with China.

       On another level, this can be seen as Kazakhstan giving an enormous
       finger to Russia.

 --
 Jennifer Richmond
 China Director, Stratfor
 US Mobile: (512) 422-9335
 China Mobile: (86) 15801890731
 Email: richmond@stratfor.com
 www.stratfor.com



  

       ------------------------------------------------------------------

 _______________________________________________
 Analysts mailing list

 LIST ADDRESS:
 analysts@stratfor.com
 LIST INFO:
 https://smtp.stratfor.com/mailman/listinfo/analysts
 LIST ARCHIVE:
 https://smtp.stratfor.com/pipermail/analysts

       ------------------------------------------------------------------

 _______________________________________________
 Analysts mailing list

 LIST ADDRESS:
 analysts@stratfor.com
 LIST INFO:
 https://smtp.stratfor.com/mailman/listinfo/analysts
 LIST ARCHIVE:
 https://smtp.stratfor.com/pipermail/analysts

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2008-11-25 15:12:48",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5537645_re-insight-china-kazakh-new-uranium-deals-in-kazakhstan-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","analysts@stratfor.com",""
5540308,"Re: MORE Re: INSIGHT - CHINA/MONGOLIA - Uranium - CN65
","   yea.. .there were quite a few indians at the mining conference that was
   staying at my hotel.
   they weren't so fun to talk to (sticks in the mud).

   Reva Bhalla wrote:

     the Indians have also been dealing heavily with the Kaz in getting their
     uranium. when i was there last there was a giant Kaz delegation there
     and my Indian defense contacts said all their talks centered on uranium
     deals. not sure how much trouble the indians have had in seeing htese
     deals through but i can find out
     On Jul 29, 2009, at 8:13 AM, Lauren Goodrich wrote:

       Kaz owns their own uranium with companies that just so happen to have
       Kremlin-ers on the boards...
       I even talked to Chinese companies about this while in Kaz and they
       told me how hard it was to get into uranium there.

       Rodger Baker wrote:

         l can see if i can get any more info from the mongolians on this if
         we are interested. 
         let me know
         On Jul 29, 2009, at 8:01 AM, Peter Zeihan wrote:

           i thought the russians pretty much owned the uranium industry in
           Kaz

           is my info dated?

           Jennifer Richmond wrote:

             In response to my question: Do you mean to say that China is now
             interested in Mongolia because they are possibly being blocked
             by Russian interests in Kazakhstan?

             No, the Chinese have pretty much wrapped up the uranium in
             Kazakhstan, and now they are trying to secure uranium in
             Mongolia as well.  Interestingly, CNNC or its subsidiaries were
             involved in both countries.
             In China, the importation of uranium is controlled by the
             central government.  They have theoretically always done this,
             but in the middle of last year they reiterated central control
             of uranium imports.  Effectively, most imports are either
             undertaken by CNNC, China Guangdong, or Sino Steel (yes, that
             last one is correct).  There may be one other authorised
             importer.  All of this means that any uranium investment is more
             centrally planned and controlled than any other outward
             investment.
             As for the Russians, I suspect they or the Americans may have
             prodded the Mongolians to rebuff the Chinese after they took
             their stake in Western Prospector.  Alternatively, the
             Mongolians may have chosen to do it on their own volition.
              Either way, the Russians are feeling under pressure.

             Antonia Colibasanu wrote:

               SOURCE: CN65
               ATTRIBUTION: Australian contact connected with the government
               and 
               natural resources
               SOURCE DESCRIPTION:  Former Australian Senator.  Source is 
               well-connected politically, militarily and economically.  He
               has become a
               private businessman helping foreign companies with M&As
               PUBLICATION: Yes but with no attribution
               SOURCE RELIABILITY: A
               ITEM CREDIBILITY: 2/3
               DISTRIBUTION: Analysts
               SPECIAL HANDLING: None
               SOURCE HANDLER: Jen

               CNNC (China National Nuclear Corporation) recently acquired a
               majority stake in Western Prospector, whose sole project is
               the Gurvanbulag Central deposit in Mongolia.  This deposit is
               actually covered by tenements in favour of three companies -
               Western Prospector, Khan, and Laramide.  My suspicion is that
               the CNNC move on Western Prospector was the prelude to raids
               both of the other companies, with a view to possible merger.
                Laramide is particularly vulnerable, as the weak equity
               market has constrained their ability to raise capital.
                Laramide has projects in Australia, which are currently on
               care & maintenance for this reason.
               As you know, relations between China and Mongolia are strained
               from time to time.  The question is whether this has been
               stoked by Russia, who would not have been happy with China
               taking 70% of Kazatomprom, and other Kazakh uranium processing
               assets earlier this year.  Russia, in turn, is quietly trying
               to get a foothold in Australian uranium exploration, which is
               the first time this has happened. 
               In short, China's massive nuclear power expansion plan
               requires significant amounts of uranium.  This has led them to
               try to secure uranium in Central Asia and Mongolia, which it
               might consider in its sphere of influence.  The problem is the
               Russians have pretensions/expectations there also.

       --
       Lauren Goodrich
       Director of Analysis
       Senior Eurasia Analyst
       STRATFOR
       T: 512.744.4311
       F: 512.744.4334
       lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
       www.stratfor.com

   --
   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   STRATFOR
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2009-07-29 15:31:43",1,"2012-02-29 14:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5540308_re-more-re-insight-china-mongolia-uranium-cn65-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","analysts@stratfor.com",""
5542676,"[Fwd: For the New-Tern]
","","2008-08-19 19:01:46",1,"2012-02-27 00:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5542676_-fwd-for-the-new-tern-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","goodrich@stratfor.com","attach/126/126613_FSU sweep list.doc
attach/126/126616_GV Client List for Team.doc
attach/174/174277_FSU sites.doc
attach/175/175579_GEOPOLITICAL IMPERATIVE - RUSSIA.doc"
5542707,"Re: From Russian source
","   Crimea is 90% dependent on Russia economically and socially...
   it would split from Ukr in a heartbeat.

   Peter Zeihan wrote:

     source is correct -- Crimea only became Ukrainian territory recently

     hell, Ukraine didn't have any political identity separate from Russia
     until very recently

     but a 'legal' challenge wouldn't work -- founding charter of the CIS
     (1993) recognized the soviet provincial boundaries

     of course we've seen in the past month how little that actually
     means....

     George Friedman wrote:

       Did you know the Crimea was Russian until Kruschev gave it to the
       Ukrainian SSR in 1954 or 1956? The only legal deal between modern
       Russia and Ukraine is a 1997 friendship Treaty and if it were
       rescinded then the legal status of the Crimea could be challenged.
        
       Fundementally, the Russians strongly feel that although the USSR broke
       up in 1991, it was on the understanding of further closeness amongst
       its core members and they feel betrayed this hasn't happened
       (especially in Ukraine
        
        
        
       So this is how the Russians would approach the Sevastapol issue.
        
       George Friedman
       Chief Executive Officer
       STRATFOR
       512.744.4319 phone
       512.744.4335 fax
       gfriedman@stratfor.com
       _______________________
        
       http://www.stratfor.com
       Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
       700 Lavaca St
       Suite 900
       Austin, Texas 78701
        

       ------------------------------------------------------------------

 _______________________________________________
 Analysts mailing list

 LIST ADDRESS:
 analysts@stratfor.com
 LIST INFO:
 https://smtp.stratfor.com/mailman/listinfo/analysts
 LIST ARCHIVE:
 https://smtp.stratfor.com/pipermail/analysts

       ------------------------------------------------------------------

 _______________________________________________
 Analysts mailing list

 LIST ADDRESS:
 analysts@stratfor.com
 LIST INFO:
 https://smtp.stratfor.com/mailman/listinfo/analysts
 LIST ARCHIVE:
 https://smtp.stratfor.com/pipermail/analysts

   --

   Lauren Goodrich
   Director of Analysis
   Senior Eurasia Analyst
   Stratfor
   Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
   T: 512.744.4311
   F: 512.744.4334
   lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
   www.stratfor.com
","2008-08-27 17:02:12",1,"2012-02-29 08:00:00","http://www.wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/5542707_re-from-russian-source-.html","goodrich@stratfor.com","","analysts@stratfor.com",""
