Unmasking Power: The Explosive Revelations of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks!

 

Unmasking Power: The Explosive Revelations of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks!

Introduction

In the age of state secrets, media manipulation, and digital surveillance, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks emerged as controversial champions of transparency. Founded in 2006, WikiLeaks quickly evolved into a global whistleblowing platform, publishing classified documents, diplomatic cables, war logs, and corporate secrets that shook governments, intelligence agencies, and multinational corporations. Assange, the Australian-born cyber activist, became both a symbol of radical transparency and a target of international scrutiny.

This article delves into the major revelations exposed by WikiLeaks, highlighting the groundbreaking leaks that unveiled war crimes, political conspiracies, and surveillance scandals, while assessing their impact on global politics, media ethics, and personal freedoms.

The Genesis of WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks was launched in December 2006 as a non-profit organization claiming to bring “important news and information to the public.” It aimed to provide a secure and anonymous platform for whistleblowers to leak sensitive documents. The site's vision was to hold the powerful accountable, operating under the belief that transparency is a key ingredient of democracy.

Assange, the site’s public face and editor-in-chief, brought a hacker’s mindset to journalism; combining cyber knowledge with a strong anti-authoritarian philosophy.

*******

The Afghan and Iraq War Logs (2010): A Deep Dive into the Leaks That Shook the Pentagon

In 2010, WikiLeaks published two of the most significant military document leaks in modern history: the Afghan War Diary (July 2010) and the Iraq War Logs (October 2010). These two data dumps, containing nearly half a million classified documents from the United States military, offered an unprecedented look into the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They revealed not only the chaos and brutality of war but also stark discrepancies between public statements made by officials and the reality on the ground.

I. The Afghan War Diary (Released: July 25, 2010)

The Afghan War Diary comprised over 91,000 classified U.S. military reports from January 2004 to December 2009. These were raw intelligence reports from field units, mostly from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and U.S. military forces.

Key Revelations

1.      Hidden Civilian Casualties:

The logs showed hundreds of unreported civilian deaths, contradicting official claims of precision warfare. These included cases where airstrikes or drone attacks mistakenly targeted civilians or where deaths were dismissed as insurgents without verification.

2.      Increased Taliban Strength:

The documents demonstrated the growing reach and power of the Taliban in many parts of Afghanistan, suggesting that the war was not being won despite optimistic political statements from Washington.

3.      Pakistan's ISI and Taliban Ties:

One of the most explosive findings was that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s intelligence agency, was supporting the Taliban and other insurgent groups. Reports cited meetings between ISI operatives and Taliban commanders, undermining the narrative of Pakistan as a cooperative U.S. ally.

4.      Operational Frustration:

The leaks showed military personnel often confused about enemy tactics, logistics, and terrain. They also highlighted inadequate training for local forces and ineffective civilian reconstruction efforts.

Impact of the Afghan War Diary

The leak caused diplomatic and political tremors worldwide. The U.S. government condemned WikiLeaks, claiming the leaks endangered lives. However, supporters argued that the logs exposed the grim truths of the war and sparked meaningful debate.

II. The Iraq War Logs (Released: October 22, 2010)

Three months after the Afghan leak, WikiLeaks published nearly 400,000 field reports from the Iraq War, covering the period from 2004 to 2009. This was the largest military leak in U.S. history at the time.

Key Revelations

1.      Civilian Deaths Underreported:

The documents detailed over 66,000 civilian deaths, many of which had not been publicly acknowledged by the U.S. government. The total number of deaths in the logs amounted to more than 109,000, including combatants.

2.      Torture by Iraqi Forces:

The logs documented systematic torture and abuse of detainees by Iraqi security forces. These included beatings, sexual abuse, electrocution, and other methods. U.S. forces were often aware of these abuses but issued “Frago 242”, a military order to not investigate unless U.S. personnel were directly involved.

3.      U.S. Killings of Civilians:

The logs also contained reports of civilian deaths at U.S. checkpoints, sometimes involving women and children. A notable example included a pregnant woman killed because a car failed to stop at a checkpoint.

4.      Private Contractors:

The Iraq logs showed the vast extent to which private military contractors, such as Blackwater (now Academi), operated in Iraq. These companies were involved in aggressive actions, including shootings and civilian deaths, with little oversight or accountability.

5.      Insurgent Attacks:

The reports revealed a high frequency of IED (improvised explosive device) attacks and suicide bombings. The sheer volume of insurgent activity documented showed how unstable Iraq remained even years after Saddam Hussein’s fall.

Impact of the Iraq War Logs

The leak intensified public scrutiny of the war in Iraq, leading to renewed calls for accountability. Human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch urged investigations into war crimes. The United Nations also demanded probes into the torture allegations.

For the U.S. government, the leak was a serious blow to its credibility. The Pentagon and the Obama administration condemned the leaks, asserting they endangered American lives and partnerships. However, no direct evidence has emerged showing that the leaks led to any deaths.

III. Reactions and Fallout

1.      U.S. Government Response:

The White House and Pentagon launched investigations and attempted to shift focus onto the alleged illegality of the leaks rather than the substance of the revelations. Then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates claimed WikiLeaks’ actions were "irresponsible."

2.      Media Partnerships:

WikiLeaks partnered with The Guardian, The New York Times, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, and El País to analyze and redact sensitive data before release. This legitimized WikiLeaks' role in investigative journalism but also sparked disputes over editorial control.

3.      Prosecution of Chelsea Manning:

Former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who leaked the documents to WikiLeaks, was arrested and later sentenced to 35 years in prison (commuted by President Obama in 2017). Her case sparked debates on whistleblowing, national security, and transparency.

4.      Julian Assange’s Profile Rises:

With these leaks, Julian Assange became a household name—praised as a hero of free speech by some and vilified as a national security threat by others. It marked a turning point in his legal and political saga.

IV. Legacy and Long-Term Impact

1.      Reframing the Narrative of War:

The Afghan and Iraq war logs shattered the narrative of “surgical warfare.” They painted a much messier and bloodier picture of the war on terror, emphasizing the cost in civilian lives.

2.      Rise of Data-Driven Whistleblowing:

The leaks signaled the dawn of a new age in whistleblowing—one powered by digital technology and decentralized platforms. It set the stage for later disclosures like Edward Snowden’s NSA revelations.

3.      Policy and Public Pressure:

Though no major prosecutions resulted from the logs, the public and congressional scrutiny increased. It contributed to shifting public opinion, especially in the U.S. and Europe, against prolonged military interventions.

4.      Ethical Journalism Debate:

The releases sparked intense debates about journalistic ethics. Did WikiLeaks cross the line by releasing unfiltered data? Or was the unvarnished truth a necessary shock to democratic systems?

Conclusion

The Afghan and Iraq War Logs were a watershed moment in global transparency. They exposed the high human cost of war, the complicity of governments in human rights abuses, and the growing opacity of military-industrial operations. While the legality of the leaks remains debated, their historical significance is undeniable. For millions worldwide, these revelations were the first unfiltered window into the realities of war—forever altering how conflicts are reported, perceived, and remembered.

*******

Collateral Murder (April 2010): The Video That Changed the Narrative of Modern Warfare

On April 5, 2010, WikiLeaks released a chilling 39-minute classified video titled "Collateral Murder," marking one of the most controversial and impactful moments in its history. The footage, obtained from a whistleblower inside the U.S. military (later revealed to be Chelsea Manning), showed a 2007 U.S. Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed more than a dozen people, including two Reuters journalists. The video’s stark, real-time documentation of wartime violence offered an unfiltered look into how modern combat operations were conducted and covered up.

This case not only shocked the world but also ignited a global debate about military accountability, the ethics of journalism, the definition of war crimes, and the future of whistleblowing.

I. The Content of the Video

The video was recorded on July 12, 2007, from the gunsight camera of a U.S. AH-64 Apache helicopter. It documented two separate airstrikes in the Baghdad suburb of New Baghdad. WikiLeaks published both a full version and a shortened 17-minute version with narration and subtitles.

Key Scenes and Events:

1.      Initial Engagement:

The footage begins with a group of men walking down the street. Among them are Namir Noor-Eldeen, a 22-year-old photojournalist, and Saeed Chmagh, his driver—both working for Reuters. They are seen carrying what the helicopter crew misidentified as weapons. One item was Noor-Eldeen’s camera, which had a long telephoto lens.

2.      The First Strike:

The crew receives permission to engage from ground command. A volley of 30mm cannon fire from the helicopter kills multiple people instantly. The crew can be heard congratulating themselves, with phrases such as “Nice” and “Look at those dead bastards.”

3.      Second Strike:

Minutes later, a van arrives on the scene. A man begins helping a wounded individual to the vehicle. Despite this being a clear non-combatant act, the Apache crew once again requests engagement and opens fire on the van, killing the driver and injuring two children who were inside.

4.      Casualties:
The total death toll was over a dozen. Reuters employees Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh were killed. Two children, Sayeed and Doaha, were severely injured in the second strike but survived.

II. The U.S. Military Narrative vs. The Video

Before the video was leaked, the Pentagon had offered an entirely different version of the events. The military claimed the engagement was a firefight against insurgents, asserting all those killed were armed combatants. Reuters had tried to obtain the footage through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) but was denied multiple times.

"Collateral Murder" blew holes in the official narrative:

·         The video showed no hostile action from the group on the ground.

·         The presence of children and the van rescue operation demonstrated a lack of clear threat.

·         The crew’s casual and at times gleeful tone during the attacks raised ethical red flags.

III. Reactions and Fallout

Public Reaction:

The video sparked immediate global outrage. Viewers were shocked not only by the violence but also by the detached manner of the helicopter crew. The title "Collateral Murder" itself was provocative, challenging the euphemistic military term “collateral damage.”

·         Protests erupted in cities around the world.

·         Human rights organizations called for investigations into war crimes.

·         The video quickly went viral, amassing millions of views within days.

Journalistic and Political Impact:

·         Reuters demanded an official investigation into the deaths of their staff.

·         The video became a cornerstone in the anti-war movement, particularly against the U.S. presence in Iraq.

·         It amplified criticism of U.S. drone and aerial strike programs in civilian areas.

IV. The Whistleblower: Chelsea Manning

U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who had access to classified military data, leaked the video to WikiLeaks in early 2010. Manning believed the public deserved to see the truth about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Legal Consequences:

·         Manning was arrested in May 2010 and charged under the Espionage Act.

·         In 2013, Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison, later commuted by President Barack Obama in 2017.

·         Manning’s leak also included the Iraq and Afghan War Logs and U.S. diplomatic cables.

V. The Role of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange

Assange presented the video with journalistic framing, including a narrated version and supporting documents. WikiLeaks gave it the powerful title "Collateral Murder", framing the act as not just an error but a crime.

Assange held a press conference in Washington, D.C., where he stated:

“The rules of engagement are wrong, deeply wrong. When you see a wounded child, your response should not be to shoot them.”

For Assange and WikiLeaks, the release epitomized their mission: to expose abuses of power using uncensored source material.

VI. U.S. Government Response

The Pentagon responded with anger and denial. Officials claimed that the attack was within the rules of engagement and that those killed were believed to be insurgents.

Damage Control Efforts:

·         The military stood by the soldiers’ actions, stating that "context" was missing from the video.

·         The Obama administration launched a criminal investigation into WikiLeaks.

·         Intelligence agencies began monitoring and restricting access to the site within U.S. institutions.

Despite official pushback, no U.S. personnel were charged or reprimanded for the killings shown in the video.

VII. Ethical and Legal Questions Raised

Was it a War Crime?

International legal experts and human rights advocates debated whether the video depicted a war crime:

·         The targeting of unarmed civilians and journalists violates the Geneva Conventions.

·         The second strike on rescuers is particularly contentious under international humanitarian law.

Rules of Engagement:

The case raised serious questions about how rules of engagement were interpreted and whether there were systemic flaws in the command structure that permitted such actions.

VIII. Broader Legacy

Transparency and Whistleblower Culture:

"Collateral Murder" set the tone for a decade of disclosures. It validated the role of whistleblowers in revealing truths about power and war and sparked similar efforts in the Snowden NSA revelations and the Panama Papers.

Media Paradigm Shift:

The video marked a watershed moment for data-driven investigative journalism. The fact that it came from a non-traditional media outlet like WikiLeaks challenged legacy media institutions and validated a new model of source-to-public information.

Public Awareness of Drone Warfare:

The video brought to light how aerial surveillance and drone-based targeting work, foreshadowing the debates on automated killing and AI-driven warfare.

Conclusion

“Collateral Murder” was not just a leaked video—it was a paradigm shift in how the public perceives modern warfare. It pulled back the curtain on sanitized official narratives and exposed the raw brutality of conflict. The fallout from its release reshaped journalism, global political discourse, and whistleblower protections. Even years later, the haunting images from that day in Baghdad remain a stark reminder of the moral complexities and human costs of war.

*******

Cablegate (2010): The U.S. Diplomatic Cables That Rocked the World

In late 2010, WikiLeaks released one of its most far-reaching and politically disruptive leaks to date: Cablegate — the unauthorized publication of over 250,000 confidential U.S. diplomatic cables sent between the U.S. State Department and its embassies around the world. This cache of documents, spanning from 1966 to 2010, exposed the inner workings of American diplomacy, the candid assessments of foreign leaders, and sensitive geopolitical strategies. The leak significantly altered global diplomatic relations and redefined the scope of transparency in international affairs.

I. The Leak: Scope and Nature

Cablegate consisted of 251,287 diplomatic cables, with about 130,000 marked as “Confidential” and 6,000 marked “Secret.” None of the cables were labeled “Top Secret,” but many were sensitive enough to cause severe diplomatic fallout.

The cables were leaked to WikiLeaks by U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning, who believed the public had a right to know what was being done in their name. WikiLeaks shared the material with major media outlets: The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, and El País, which coordinated the redaction and publication of selected documents starting on November 28, 2010.

II. Key Revelations from Cablegate

1. Double Standards in Diplomacy

Cablegate revealed a persistent disconnect between the U.S.’s public and private positions:

·         While publicly promoting democracy and human rights, the U.S. privately supported regimes with authoritarian tendencies, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, and Yemen.

·         The cables exposed how the U.S. quietly tolerated or enabled corruption in allied governments when strategic interests were at stake.

2. Espionage under Diplomatic Cover

The leak showed that U.S. diplomats were instructed to spy on foreign officials and UN representatives, including gathering biometric data, credit card numbers, and passwords. A 2009 cable signed by Hillary Clinton (then Secretary of State) requested detailed intelligence on UN officials—something that blurred the lines between diplomacy and espionage.

3. Middle East Tensions and Iran

Cablegate revealed that Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE, had privately urged the U.S. to attack Iran and stop its nuclear program—despite publicly opposing war. Saudi King Abdullah was quoted as saying the U.S. should “cut off the head of the snake.”

This underlined the hypocrisy in Middle Eastern diplomacy and highlighted the region’s realpolitik approach to Iran’s growing influence.

4. Corruption and Misrule Worldwide

The cables included detailed observations of:

·         Russia: Described as a “mafia state,” with Vladimir Putin at the helm of a system dominated by corruption and collusion with oligarchs.

·         Afghanistan: President Hamid Karzai was painted as paranoid and heavily reliant on corrupt family members.

·         Libya: Leader Muammar Gaddafi was described as eccentric, reliant on a Ukrainian nurse, and obsessed with Botox and female bodyguards.

·         Tunisia: President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s regime was portrayed as a kleptocracy—information that helped catalyze the Tunisian Revolution and the wider Arab Spring.

5. Human Rights Abuses and U.S. Complicity

Cables revealed U.S. knowledge of human rights abuses by allies:

• In Yemen, the U.S. conducted drone strikes and allowed the Yemeni government to claim responsibility.
• In Iraq, the U.S. was aware of widespread torture in Iraqi-run prisons but chose to ignore or downplay it.

III. Impact on Global Diplomacy

Cablegate is widely regarded as the most serious breach of diplomatic confidentiality in history. The blunt assessments of foreign leaders, regional conflicts, and internal power dynamics deeply embarrassed governments across the globe.

Diplomatic Fallout:

·         Several U.S. ambassadors were recalled or reassigned.

·         Foreign leaders demanded explanations or issued angry denials.

·         International relations between the U.S. and several allies suffered temporary setbacks.

Despite the backlash, U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged that no long-term damage was caused to strategic relationships.

IV. U.S. Government and Media Response

The U.S. government condemned the leak and launched a full-scale investigation.

·         Hillary Clinton called the leak “an attack on the international community.”

·         President Obama’s administration declared WikiLeaks a threat to national security.

·         The Department of Justice opened a criminal case against Julian Assange, pursuing him for alleged violations of the Espionage Act.

Media Position:

Mainstream media partners walked a careful line. While they collaborated with WikiLeaks initially, most distanced themselves after the fallout. The New York Times and The Guardian defended the public’s right to know but criticized Assange’s approach.

V. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks’ Role

Assange framed Cablegate as a historic moment for radical transparency:

“The cables show the extent of U.S. diplomatic deceit, and the public deserves to know.”

WikiLeaks used a crowdsourced journalism model, hosting the documents and inviting public analysis. While critics accused the platform of being reckless, supporters praised it for exposing systemic deception and unchecked power.

The leak turned Assange into a global lightning rod—seen as a visionary by some and a villain by others. Following the release, he sought asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to avoid extradition to Sweden (and, by extension, possibly the U.S.).

VI. Ethics and Legal Debate

Whistleblower vs. Traitor

Supporters of WikiLeaks and Manning argued that the leaks revealed essential truths and helped promote government accountability.

Opponents claimed the disclosure endangered lives and undermined national security:

·         The U.S. said informants named in the cables were put at risk (though no concrete deaths were traced to Cablegate).

·         Critics argued that diplomacy requires confidentiality and that full transparency can paralyze honest internal discussions.

Freedom of the Press

Cablegate revived long-standing debates on the boundaries of press freedom, especially in the digital age. If WikiLeaks was prosecuted, would that set a precedent for criminalizing journalists who publish leaks?

VII. Long-Term Legacy

1. Shift in Information Governance

Cablegate marked a tipping point in how governments manage classified information. It led to a tightening of access within the U.S. military and diplomatic corps and the creation of internal surveillance mechanisms to prevent similar leaks.

2. Rise of Digital Whistleblowing Culture

The success of WikiLeaks inspired a new generation of whistleblowers and platforms. Without Cablegate, it is unlikely that Edward Snowden’s NSA disclosures in 2013 would have found the same traction.

3. Geopolitical Realignment

The leak played a subtle but crucial role in destabilizing autocratic regimes:

·         In Tunisia, details of Ben Ali’s lavish lifestyle helped ignite the revolution.

·         In Egypt, leaks confirmed U.S. support for Mubarak even amid public unrest, fueling anti-American sentiment during the uprising.

4. Legal Precedents and Censorship Battles

Cablegate’s fallout continues to influence internet law, freedom of expression cases, and cybersecurity policy across the globe. It remains a central case study in journalism schools, diplomatic academies, and international law debates.

Conclusion

Cablegate was more than just a data leak—it was a profound moment in modern history that challenged the foundations of statecraft, journalism, and the public’s right to know. While its ethical implications are still debated, the leaks undeniably brought transparency to the opaque corridors of global power. As Julian Assange once said, “If wars can be started by lies, peace can be started by truth.” Cablegate remains one of the boldest efforts to bring that truth to light.

*******

Guantanamo Files (2011): The Secret Dossiers of America’s Detention Machine

In April 2011, WikiLeaks in collaboration with several major media outlets released a set of 779 classified U.S. military documents related to detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba. Known as the Guantanamo Files, these documents shed unprecedented light on the inner workings, practices, and rationale behind the U.S. government's post-9/11 detention policies. For the first time, the world gained access to the classified assessments of every detainee—both past and present—revealing a system deeply compromised by flawed intelligence, questionable legal standards, and human rights abuses.

I. Background: Guantanamo and the War on Terror

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base became infamous after President George W. Bush’s administration designated it as a detention center for suspected terrorists following the September 11, 2001 attacks. In 2002, the facility began receiving detainees captured in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere. The Bush administration labeled the captives as “enemy combatants”, denying them prisoner-of-war status and circumventing the Geneva Conventions.

Over time, Guantanamo became a global symbol of indefinite detention, torture, and legal limbo. Activists, human rights organizations, and even U.S. political leaders, including President Barack Obama, condemned its existence. But the full extent of the abuses remained obscured until the WikiLeaks release.

II. Nature and Scope of the Leak

The Guantanamo Files consisted of Detainee Assessment Briefs (DABs) prepared between 2002 and 2009 by the Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO). These documents provided military assessments of each detainee's:

·         Personal background and biography

·         Health and behavior in custody

·         Intelligence value

·         Risk level (low, medium, high)

·         Recommendations (release, transfer, continued detention)

The data covered 779 individuals detained since the facility's opening. Some were already released by 2011, but the documents still evaluated their supposed threat levels.

III. Key Revelations from the Guantanamo Files

1. Many Detainees Were Innocent or Low-Level Captives

The files exposed that many detainees had no real connection to terrorism. Scores of prisoners were captured based on:

·         Flimsy evidence

·         Faulty intelligence

·         Rival tribes or bounty hunters selling suspects to U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan for cash rewards.

Example:

An 89-year-old Afghan villager and a 14-year-old child were both held at Guantanamo under suspicion of being “Taliban sympathizers,” despite zero evidence linking them to violence.

2. Reliance on Unreliable and Coerced Testimonies

Much of the intelligence in the files was based on confessions or statements from other detainees, some of whom were known to be mentally ill, tortured, or highly unreliable.

Example:

The testimony of detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani, who was subjected to severe torture and later found to have been falsely accused, was used to justify the continued detention of others.

3. Assessment Based on Associations, Not Actions

Detainees were often labeled as “high risk” simply for being in a certain mosque, traveling through a region of interest, or knowing someone already suspected of terrorism. The files revealed how thin the line was between “guilt by association” and direct involvement.

4. Use of Guantanamo for Intelligence Gathering, Not Justice

The files clarified that detainees were not being held based on a legal process but rather for their perceived intelligence value—whether they could provide information on al-Qaeda, Taliban networks, or future threats.

5. Torture, Mental Illness, and Detention Abuse

While the files did not always explicitly describe torture, they revealed alarming patterns:

·         Detainees with mental health issues were kept for years without treatment.

·         Signs of psychological breakdowns, hunger strikes, and suicide attempts were common.

·         Prisoners were often described as “non-compliant” and “aggressive” simply for protesting their indefinite detention or poor conditions.

IV. Notable Cases Highlighted

1. Abu Zubaydah

Originally believed to be a senior al-Qaeda leader, Zubaydah was waterboarded over 80 times. The Guantanamo Files revealed the CIA had grossly overestimated his role in terrorist operations.

2. Mohamedou Ould Slahi

Accused of being a recruiter for al-Qaeda, Slahi endured torture and solitary confinement. Despite insufficient evidence, he was held for 14 years without trial. His story was later documented in his memoir Guantánamo Diary.

3. Omar Khadr

A Canadian citizen, Khadr was captured at age 15 in Afghanistan and held for a decade. The files listed him as “high risk,” but failed to note his status as a child soldier, a category protected under international law.

V. Reaction and Global Impact

Public Outrage

The revelations further tarnished the already controversial image of Guantanamo Bay. Human rights organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch used the leaks to demand immediate closure of the facility and legal recourse for victims.

U.S. Government Reaction

·         The Obama administration condemned the leak, saying it endangered national security and diplomatic efforts.

·         However, it did not challenge the authenticity of the documents.

·         The administration accelerated the review of detainee cases—but closure of the facility remained blocked by Congressional opposition.

International Diplomacy

Several countries criticized the U.S. for detaining their nationals without charges, while others were revealed to have cooperated secretly with U.S. detention policies.

VI. Legal and Ethical Debates

1. Due Process and Habeas Corpus

The files reinforced concerns that detainees were denied basic legal rights. Many had never been charged or tried, and were subject to indefinite detention under the justification of national security.

2. Use of Torture

While the files themselves do not give detailed torture accounts, they implicitly document a regime of coercion and psychological manipulation.

3. Classification and Secrecy

The Guantanamo Files reignited debates on government classification. Critics argued that many documents were classified not to protect national security, but to avoid embarrassment and legal accountability.

VII. The Role of WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks framed the release as a moral imperative. Julian Assange argued that the files proved systemic injustice and warranted exposure to the global public:

“The Guantánamo Files reveal the machinery of a lawless system, detaining innocent people for years, using torture, and denying them a fair hearing.”

Assange coordinated the release with global media outlets including The Washington Post, Der Spiegel, and La Repubblica, ensuring wide and balanced coverage.

VIII. Long-Term Legacy

1. Closure Still Elusive

Despite President Obama’s repeated promises to close Guantanamo, the facility remained open through his term and into the Trump administration. As of 2025, 30+ detainees remain in the prison.

2. Public Awareness and Documentary Evidence

The Guantanamo Files created a permanent public record of the detainees’ stories and the U.S. government’s methods. They are now referenced in academic research, international law proceedings, and human rights litigation.

3. Vindication of Whistleblowers

The revelations added legitimacy to the claims made by former detainees, lawyers, and human rights organizations. It also strengthened the arguments of whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Daniel Hale, who followed in Chelsea Manning’s footsteps.

Conclusion

The Guantanamo Files stand as a stark reminder of the costs of unchecked executive power, especially in the fog of war. They revealed a system where hundreds of men—many of them innocent—were detained, abused, and forgotten in a legal void. The impact of these files extended far beyond journalism; they forced governments and societies to confront the moral failures of the War on Terror and to question the boundaries of justice in a democratic society.

*******

Stratfor Emails (2012): Exposing the Shadow Intelligence Industry

In February 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing over 5 million internal emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting, Inc.). Dubbed the "Global Intelligence Files", this leak revealed the inner workings of a powerful but secretive corporate security firm often described as a "shadow CIA." The emails exposed Stratfor’s links to government agencies, multinational corporations, covert operations, and geopolitical risk management—all of which raised serious ethical and legal concerns about the privatization of intelligence.

The Stratfor leak revealed how the world of corporate espionage, information trading, and political manipulation operates behind closed doors.

I. Background: What is Stratfor?

Founded in 1996 and based in Austin, Texas, Stratfor marketed itself as a geopolitical intelligence and consulting firm. It provided:

·         Strategic forecasts

·         Risk assessments

·         Intelligence briefings

·         Security monitoring

Clients included Fortune 500 companies, defense contractors, financial institutions, and government bodies. Stratfor analysts monitored events worldwide, publishing reports on geopolitics, terrorism, cyber threats, and economic instability.

However, the leaked emails revealed that Stratfor’s operations went far beyond open-source analysis and entered the murky realm of private surveillance, infiltration, and disinformation.

II. The Leak and Its Origins

The Stratfor emails were obtained by the hacker collective Anonymous, which infiltrated Stratfor’s servers in December 2011. The hack exposed:

·         Email archives (2004–2011)

·         Usernames, passwords

·         Credit card details of subscribers

·         Confidential client data

WikiLeaks began publishing the material on February 27, 2012, working in collaboration with media outlets such as Rolling Stone, The Hindu, L’Espresso, and La Jornada.

III. Key Revelations from the Stratfor Emails

1. Corporate Spying for Profit

The emails revealed that Stratfor monitored activists, journalists, and organizations on behalf of corporations and government clients. This included:

·         Occupy Wall Street and environmental groups like Greenpeace.

·         Bhopal disaster victims’ groups, on behalf of Dow Chemical.

·         PETA and animal rights campaigners, allegedly tracked for Monsanto.

·         WikiLeaks itself, which was the subject of an internal project codenamed “Assange 24/7”.

The emails suggested a surveillance-for-hire business model, where Stratfor provided client-specific intelligence, often of a politically sensitive nature.

2. Covert Operations and Double Agents

Some emails discussed efforts to recruit informants inside foreign governments, NGOs, and activist groups. A few messages mentioned the use of former intelligence officers and connections with Israeli, British, and U.S. intelligence agencies.

One internal email suggested that Stratfor considered paying sources in cash, gold, or via Swiss bank accounts, and that they had developed mechanisms for laundering payments through shell companies.

Example email (Dec 6, 2011):

“We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect. Need to find a way to move funds to informant in Libya.”

Though the authenticity of every claim could not be verified, the tone and detail underscored the company's aggressive operational posture.

3. Insight into U.S. Government Plans

Several Stratfor emails appeared to have inside knowledge of secret U.S. government activities:

·         Discussions about Osama bin Laden's body being secretly transported to the U.S., contradicting official burial-at-sea accounts.

·         Comments about CIA and FBI operations in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.

·         Claims that U.S. intelligence agencies used Stratfor as a conduit for politically sensitive leaks.

Example: An email dated May 2011 said,

"Obama did not make the call to kill OBL. Panetta did. Intel is leaking fast from inside JSOC."

4. Collusion Between Media and Intelligence

Stratfor cultivated relationships with journalists and used media outlets to disseminate narratives favorable to their clients or to manipulate public perception. The emails show attempts to plant stories, spin political events, and exploit media influence.

In one email, a Stratfor executive said:

“We control the media more than they control us.”

This exposed a disturbing intersection between private intelligence, PR, and journalism, where information could be weaponized for commercial or political goals.

IV. Organizational Culture and Ethics

The emails painted a picture of a corporate spy firm driven by profit, cynicism, and political opportunism. Stratfor staff casually discussed assassinations, blackmail, and overthrowing regimes. Some internal jokes and emails showed a lack of concern for ethical boundaries.

One email (Feb 2010) stated:

“Give me a secure line and a dirty job, and we’ll get it done.”

Another:

“Human rights lawyers are useful idiots.”

This culture—where moral ambiguity was a business asset—mirrored the most controversial aspects of state-run intelligence agencies, now outsourced to a for-profit entity.

V. Stratfor’s Reaction

After the hack, Stratfor temporarily shut down operations, issued apologies to clients, and hired a crisis management firm. It claimed the emails were “stolen and manipulated” but stopped short of denying their authenticity.

The firm downplayed the role of analysts as “commentators” and distanced itself from any illegal conduct. However, the revelations caused severe reputational damage.

VI. Impact and Global Fallout

1. Exposure of the Intelligence-Industrial Complex

The leak revealed the emergence of a private intelligence complex parallel to the military-industrial complex. Governments and corporations now outsourced intelligence functions—surveillance, analysis, disruption—to firms like Stratfor.

2. Legal Questions and Cybersecurity Issues

·         The hack and release of personal data (credit cards, passwords) raised questions about digital ethics.

·         Stratfor clients sued the firm for failing to protect their data.

·         It also reignited debates on cybersecurity, ethical hacking, and digital whistleblowing.

3. Strengthening of WikiLeaks’ Legacy

Though not as explosive as Cablegate or the War Logs, the Stratfor Emails reaffirmed WikiLeaks’ role in:

·         Demystifying power structures

·         Challenging privatized surveillance

·         Creating permanent records of systemic abuses

Julian Assange stated:

“The Stratfor files reveal a privatized spying machine that operates without oversight, accountability, or law… This is intelligence capitalism.”

VII. Broader Implications

1. The Privatization of Intelligence

The Stratfor Files revealed that intelligence gathering and political analysis had become a commercial industry, where surveillance could be commissioned like any other service.

This challenges democratic accountability—who oversees these entities? What happens when private spies influence governments?

2. Rise of Hybrid Warfare

The emails indicated how private firms engage in information warfare, propaganda, and disruption. Stratfor’s discussions of uprisings, assassinations, and strategic messaging show the growing role of “non-kinetic warfare” in global conflict.

3. Suppression of Activism

Many revelations showed that corporations and government bodies targeted activist networks, journalists, and civil society—suggesting a counter-democratic trend in intelligence usage.

VIII. Conclusion

The Stratfor Emails pulled back the curtain on a parallel world of privatized intelligence, where global corporations, media outlets, and governments intersect in opaque and often troubling ways. They highlighted how secrecy, surveillance, and influence are now commodities—bought and sold like weapons or oil.

While Stratfor may have only been one actor, the leak symbolized a larger shift: the corporatization of state functions and the emergence of new, shadowy power brokers in the age of information warfare. WikiLeaks' exposure of this system remains a critical moment in the fight for transparency and accountability in a digital world increasingly ruled by hidden agendas.

*******

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) Emails (2016): Undermining Democracy from Within

In July 2016, amid a highly polarized U.S. presidential election, WikiLeaks released nearly 20,000 internal emails from the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the governing body of the U.S. Democratic Party. The publication sent shockwaves through American politics, exposing internal favoritism, media collusion, donor manipulation, and ethical breaches.

The revelations ultimately forced the resignation of key DNC officials, cast a long shadow over the legitimacy of the Democratic primaries, and intensified concerns over foreign interference and the role of leaks in democratic processes.

I. Background: The 2016 Election and the Democratic Divide

The 2016 U.S. presidential race featured a fierce primary battle between Hillary Clinton, the Democratic establishment's frontrunner, and Bernie Sanders, a progressive senator from Vermont. Sanders galvanized a grassroots movement that challenged the party’s elite structure, calling for an end to corporate influence and political corruption.

The DNC, expected to remain neutral during the primaries, was accused by Sanders supporters of favoring Clinton. These accusations were considered speculative—until WikiLeaks' publication of the DNC’s internal correspondence confirmed them.

II. The Leak and Its Contents

On July 22, 2016, just days before the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks published 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from seven key DNC officials. These emails, spanning from January 2015 to May 2016, were believed to have been obtained by Russian hackers (later identified as Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear, linked to the GRU).

Key figures whose accounts were compromised included:

·         Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DNC Chair)

·         Luis Miranda (Communications Director)

·         Brad Marshall (CFO)

·         Amy Dacey (CEO)

III. Major Revelations

1. Undermining Bernie Sanders’ Campaign

The most explosive finding was that top DNC officials strategized to sabotage Bernie Sanders, despite their mandate to remain impartial. Internal emails revealed:

·         Plans to highlight Sanders' religious identity (suggesting he was an atheist) to hurt him in conservative religious states like Kentucky and West Virginia.

·         Discussions mocking Sanders' campaign staff and fundraising efforts.

·         Coordinated efforts to present Clinton as the inevitable nominee.

Email from Brad Marshall (May 2016):

“Does he believe in a God?… My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”

These revelations confirmed the institutional bias that Sanders' supporters had long suspected.

2. Media Collusion and Narrative Manipulation

The emails showed that the DNC maintained cozy relationships with major media outlets, including CNN, MSNBC, Politico, and The Washington Post. Examples included:

·         Leaking of debate questions to the Clinton campaign via DNC-linked operatives.

·         Coordination on anti-Sanders op-eds and placement of favorable stories for Clinton.

·         The use of “approved narratives” and direct contact with journalists to shape press coverage.

Email to Politico reporter Kenneth Vogel: “Vogel gave us his story before publication… we fact-checked and approved it. No problem.”

This raised serious ethical concerns about media independence and journalistic integrity.

3. Donor Influence and Fundraising Practices

The DNC emails revealed how donors and lobbyists were given special access and influence, including:

·         Priority seating at events

·         Policy consultations

·         Ambassadorship recommendations

The DNC also used joint fundraising vehicles like the Hillary Victory Fund to funnel money to Clinton’s campaign while claiming to support state parties.

Internal memo: “Donor X wants to sit next to POTUS. Make sure it’s arranged.”

These disclosures suggested a pay-to-play culture within the Democratic Party, damaging its progressive image.

4. Disparaging Activists and Voters

Some emails included disparaging remarks about Sanders supporters, including descriptions of them as “violent,” “naïve,” or “rabid.” There were also messages suggesting that black and Latino outreach was “cosmetic”, rather than meaningful.

Such communications reinforced perceptions of elitism and disconnect within the DNC.

IV. Immediate Fallout

1. Resignations and Internal Shakeup

The leak caused immediate political tremors. On the eve of the Democratic National Convention:

·         Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned as DNC Chair.

·         Other senior DNC staff, including Amy Dacey and Brad Marshall, also stepped down.

·         Clinton’s campaign was forced to apologize to Sanders supporters, though she continued to deny orchestrating bias.

2. Divided Convention and Party Fracture

At the DNC Convention, the mood was tense. Protests erupted from Sanders delegates, some walked out, and chants of “Bernie or Bust” filled the arena. Though Sanders endorsed Clinton, many of his supporters felt betrayed and disillusioned.

The party emerged deeply fractured, weakening its unity against the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

3. Republican Exploitation

Donald Trump and his campaign capitalized on the DNC scandal. Trump repeatedly referenced the leak during speeches and debates, casting Clinton as corrupt and untrustworthy. The controversy played a significant role in the broader “Crooked Hillary” narrative.

V. Russia, WikiLeaks, and the Intelligence Angle

1. Attribution to Russian Hacking

U.S. intelligence agencies, cybersecurity firms like CrowdStrike, and later the Mueller Report (2019) concluded that the emails were stolen by Russian state hackers. They alleged that WikiLeaks acted as a cutout for Russian intelligence, which aimed to sow discord in U.S. politics and help elect Trump.

However, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange repeatedly denied these claims. Assange maintained that the source was not a state actor.

Assange: “Our source is not the Russian government and is not a state party.”

The debate over foreign interference and WikiLeaks’ role in it became central to discussions of information warfare, cybersecurity, and electoral integrity.

2. Debate on Whistleblowing vs. Weaponization

Supporters of WikiLeaks argued the DNC leaks served the public interest by exposing corruption and favoritism. Critics countered that the timing and selective nature of the releases represented political sabotage.

The case raised profound questions:

·         When does leaking cross the line into election tampering?

·         Are politically motivated leaks ethical if the information is true?

VI. Broader Impact and Legacy

1. Shattered Trust in Democratic Institutions

The leak damaged the credibility of the Democratic Party, especially among young voters and progressives. Trust in party neutrality and the integrity of primary processes was severely eroded.

2. Rise of Electoral Disinformation

The DNC hack and leak marked the beginning of a new era of cyber-enabled political manipulation, where hacked content could be used as disinformation, regardless of accuracy or context.

3. Precedent for Future Cyber Leaks

The events of 2016 established a precedent for cyber-leaks as a form of political warfare, a tactic later seen in elections across Europe, Latin America, and Asia.

4. Long-Term Division in the Democratic Base

The ideological rift between the progressive and establishment wings of the party widened. Many Sanders supporters became disillusioned with the Democratic establishment, contributing to left-wing skepticism that persists even in later election cycles.

VII. Conclusion

The DNC Email leak was a seismic event in modern U.S. political history. It revealed a party apparatus entangled with corporate donors, dismissive of grassroots activists, and aligned with a candidate long before the primaries ended. Though the information exposed was authentic and arguably in the public interest, the methods and timing provoked a global debate on the ethics of digital whistleblowing and the weaponization of truth.

Whether a principled exposé or a geopolitical act of sabotage, the DNC leaks marked a turning point—one where transparency collided with partisanship, and truth became a tool of power.

*******

Vault 7 (2017): WikiLeaks' Most Devastating CIA Leak

On March 7, 2017, WikiLeaks began publishing a series of documents collectively known as “Vault 7”, exposing the entire cyber-espionage arsenal of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This unprecedented leak included secret tools, hacking techniques, malware, viruses, and exploits used by the CIA to conduct cyber-operations globally.

Vault 7 was not only the largest leak of CIA documents in history, but also one of the most chilling revelations about digital surveillance, cyberwarfare, and the erosion of privacy in the 21st century.

I. What Is Vault 7?

Vault 7 refers to a series of CIA files created between 2013 and 2016, which were leaked to WikiLeaks and published between March 2017 and September 2017. The initial publication, titled "Year Zero", was followed by subsequent parts such as Dark Matter, Marble Framework, Grasshopper, Weeping Angel, and Hive.

The leak contained over 8,000 documents from the CIA's Engineering Development Group (EDG), part of its Center for Cyber Intelligence based in Langley, Virginia.

The documents revealed:

·         Cyber tools used for espionage, sabotage, and remote control

·         Exploits targeting iPhones, Android devices, Smart TVs, computers, and even cars

·         Attempts to obscure attribution by mimicking the footprints of other hacker groups or states

II. Scope of the Leak

The Vault 7 files exposed the CIA’s transformation into a cyber-operations agency, comparable to the NSA. These operations were not limited to foreign adversaries but potentially included domestic targets and even allied governments.

Some of the tools and capabilities included:

·         "Weeping Angel": A tool that turned Samsung Smart TVs into covert listening devices, even when they appeared off.

·         "Umbrage": A cyber-library allowing the CIA to mimic Russian, Chinese, North Korean, or Iranian malware signatures, enabling false flag operations.

·         "HIVE": A covert communication platform for malware to receive commands and exfiltrate data, disguised under fake HTTPS web traffic.

·         "Fine Dining": A system that tricked targets into downloading malicious software under the guise of legitimate programs.

·         "Vault Tools for Apple and Android": Allowing CIA operatives to bypass encryption by exploiting security holes at the operating system level.

III. Major Revelations

1. The CIA’s Arsenal Rivaled the NSA’s

While the NSA was already known for its global surveillance (exposed by Edward Snowden in 2013), Vault 7 showed the CIA had developed its own offensive cyber division capable of:

·         Infiltrating devices without leaving traces

·         Using zero-day exploits (previously unknown vulnerabilities)

·         Installing malware in firmware and boot-level environments, making detection nearly impossible

This indicated a massive duplication of cyber power between U.S. intelligence agencies, with little oversight or coordination.

2. No Digital Device Was Safe

The CIA had tools to hack virtually every major digital platform, including:

·         Windows, MacOS, Linux

·         iOS and Android smartphones

·         Wi-Fi routers, webcams, and Smart TVs

These tools could record keystrokes, activate microphones and cameras, and steal messages before encryption (rendering apps like Signal or WhatsApp useless against such attacks).

Assange: “The CIA has lost control of its entire cyberweapons arsenal.”

The chilling implication: global mass surveillance was now technologically feasible, and the boundaries between spying and hacking had dissolved.

3. Undermining Public Trust in Technology

Vault 7 showed that the CIA actively stockpiled zero-day vulnerabilities in commercial software—rather than disclosing them to vendors like Apple, Google, or Microsoft for patching. This practice put millions of users at risk of attack not only by the CIA but by anyone who acquired those tools.

WikiLeaks: “By hiding these flaws from manufacturers, the CIA ensures that it can hack everyone—at the expense of public safety.”

This raised a critical ethical question: Should governments hoard or report software vulnerabilities?

4. Global Hacking Infrastructure

The CIA created a worldwide covert hacking network, using:

·         “Listening posts” embedded in U.S. embassies and consulates

·         Malware that could self-destruct or wipe logs, making attribution nearly impossible

·         A fake HTTPS certificate system to mask malware traffic

This allowed the CIA to operate globally, often outside the bounds of U.S. law and without clear accountability to Congress or international bodies.

IV. Response and Fallout

1. CIA Reaction

The CIA refused to confirm the authenticity of the leaks but stated:

“We do not conduct electronic surveillance on individuals in the U.S., and we do not comment on the authenticity of purported intelligence documents.”

However, internal investigations later confirmed that the documents were genuine and represented a catastrophic breach. The CIA admitted losing control of these cyber tools in 2016.

2. Investigation and Arrests

The FBI launched a massive investigation, eventually targeting Joshua Schulte, a former CIA software engineer. In 2022, Schulte was convicted of espionage and other charges for leaking Vault 7 to WikiLeaks.

The case showed how internal disgruntlement or ideological motives could lead to significant national security breaches.

3. Global Backlash and Debate

·         Tech companies rushed to patch vulnerabilities exposed in Vault 7.

·         Human rights organizations condemned the CIA for endangering the public by withholding vulnerability disclosures.

·         Governments worldwide questioned the implications of U.S. hacking into their infrastructure—Germany, in particular, expressed outrage.

V. Broader Implications

1. The Militarization of Cyberspace

Vault 7 confirmed that cyberspace had become a military and intelligence battleground, with tools equivalent to digital missiles—capable of crippling systems, stealing secrets, and manipulating perception.

2. Escalation of Cyber Arms Race

Other nations were now more incentivized to build, stockpile, and deploy cyberweapons. The leak revealed that cybersecurity was no longer just a technical issue—it was a matter of national security and diplomacy.

3. End of Trust in Digital Privacy

For ordinary users, Vault 7 reinforced a terrifying idea: no digital device was private, and the government could spy on its citizens with more ease and invisibility than ever before.

VI. Assange and WikiLeaks: Motivations and Ethics

Julian Assange defended the Vault 7 release as a service to the public. He argued that:

·         The CIA had failed to secure its arsenal.

·         The leaks could force reform and accountability.

·         WikiLeaks was acting as a neutral transparency platform, offering tech companies access to vulnerabilities before public disclosure.

Critics, however, accused WikiLeaks of:

·         Aiding U.S. adversaries by revealing methods and tactics.

·         Failing to redact sensitive technical details.

·         Being politically motivated, especially following the DNC leaks in 2016.

VII. Conclusion: A New Age of Transparency and Vulnerability

The Vault 7 revelations marked a watershed moment in the history of espionage, digital privacy, and government power. By pulling back the curtain on the CIA’s cyber capabilities, WikiLeaks forced the world to confront an uncomfortable truth: the tools used to protect national security could just as easily be turned against citizens, allies, and the very ideals they claimed to defend.

Vault 7 showed that state secrecy in the cyber age is deeply fragile—and when breached, the fallout can destabilize trust, security, and global norms. Whether one views Assange as a whistleblower or a traitor, Vault 7 changed the global conversation about surveillance, hacking, and the fine line between protection and violation.

*******

Legal Persecution and the Assange Saga

Julian Assange’s journey from whistleblower to wanted fugitive is as dramatic as the leaks themselves. In 2012, he sought asylum in Ecuador's London Embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden over now-dropped sexual assault allegations, which he argued were a pretext to extradite him to the U.S.

In 2019, he was arrested by UK police after Ecuador revoked his asylum. He is currently fighting extradition to the United States where he faces 18 charges under the Espionage Act, which could lead to a sentence of over 175 years in prison.

Press Freedom Debate:

·         Supporters’ View: Assange is a journalist and political prisoner whose work exposed war crimes and government corruption.

·         Critics’ View: He endangered lives by not redacting sensitive data and allegedly collaborated with hostile foreign actors.

Global Impact and Legacy

Political Consequences:

·         Helped trigger the Arab Spring by exposing corrupt regimes.

·         Altered the course of the 2016 U.S. election.

·         Pressured governments to reconsider diplomatic protocols and data security.

Media Ethics:

·         Redefined the boundaries of investigative journalism.

·         Sparked debates on the responsibility of media when publishing classified information.

·         Inspired similar whistleblowing efforts like the Panama Papers and Snowden leaks.

Transparency vs. National Security:

Assange’s work reignited age-old questions:

·         Should transparency come at the cost of national security?

·         Can secrecy be justified in democratic societies?

Conclusion

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have changed the global landscape of journalism, governance, and whistleblowing. The troves of documents released painted a picture of modern geopolitics where democratic ideals often clash with covert operations and state interests. While opinions remain divided, Assange’s legacy is etched in the digital age as a crusader for transparency or a cautionary tale of unchecked disclosure.

As the legal and political drama continues, the broader questions WikiLeaks raised—about accountability, secrecy, and the public's right to know—remain more relevant than ever in our surveillance-driven world.

References

1.      WikiLeaks.org – Official archive of leaked documents.

2.      Leigh, David & Harding, Luke. WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy. Guardian Books, 2011.

3.      Greenwald, Glenn. No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. Metropolitan Books, 2014.

4.      "Collateral Murder" – Video published by WikiLeaks, April 2010.

5.      “The Iraq War Logs” – WikiLeaks, October 2010.

6.      “Cablegate” – WikiLeaks in collaboration with The Guardian, NYT, Der Spiegel, 2010.

7.      "Vault 7: CIA Hacking Tools Revealed" – WikiLeaks, March 2017.

8.      United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention report on Assange, 2016.

9.      Amnesty International Reports on Guantanamo Bay and Press Freedom.

10.  “The DNC Leak and the 2016 Election” – The New York Times, 2016.

11.  WikiLeaks, Vault 7: CIA Hacking Tools Revealed, 2017 – https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/

12.  New York Times, WikiLeaks Releases Trove of Alleged CIA Hacking Documents, March 2017.

13.  The Guardian, Vault 7: CIA hacking tools leaked, March 7, 2017.

14.  Wired, Inside Vault 7: CIA’s Secret Cyberwar, March 2017.

15.  United States Department of Justice, U.S. v. Joshua Schulte, 2022 court filings.

16.  Julian Assange, Vault 7 Press Conference, WikiLeaks Archive, 2017.