Top News

WikiLeaks lists sites U.S. says vital to interests

LONDON (Reuters) - WikiLeaks published more details of sites around the globe that the United States considers vital to its interests, prompting criticism the website is helping militants identify sensitive targets for attack.

A screen shot of a web browser shows the home page with a portrait of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange next to the out of service domain, in Lavigny December 4, 2010. WikiLeaks moved its website address from to the Swiss on Friday after two U.S. Internet providers ditched it and Paris tried to ban French servers from hosting its database of leaked information. REUTERS/Valentin Flauraud

The details are part of 250,000 diplomatic cables obtained and being made public by the campaigning website.

The list begins with a cobalt mine in Kinshasa, Congo and refers to various locations in Europe where drug companies produce insulin, treatment for snake bites and foot and mouth vaccines.

In the Middle East, it notes that Qatar will be the largest source of imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) by 2012 and also refers to the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia, the largest crude oil process and stabilisation plant in the world.

Al Qaeda mounted an unsuccessful attack on Abqaiq in 2006, and there were warnings that the WikiLeaks cable setting out so many sensitive targets could help militants.

The release of the information drew strong condemnation from the United States and the United Kingdom.

“Let me condemn in the strongest terms the leaks of information” about the sites, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters in Washington. “The American people themselves have been put at risk by these actions that I believe are arrogant, misguided and ultimately do not help in any way.”

Holder also said the Obama administration was considering using laws in addition to the U.S. Espionage Act to possibly prosecute for the release of the information.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague called the publication of the list “particularly reprehensible.”

Related Coverage

“There is great concern of course about disclosing a list of targets that could be of use to terrorists or saboteurs,” he told BBC radio.

“I think it is absolutely reprehensible the publication is carried out without regard to wider concerns of security, the security of millions of people,” he said.


John J. LeBeau, a former CIA officer who teaches security studies at the George C. Marshall Centre in Germany, said the list “might put ideas into jihadist heads as to what to profitably target.”

“The real story here though, I think, is that putting this type of material online makes clear that WikiLeaks does not care about the consequences of its actions,” he told Reuters.

“If the leaks complicate the security posture of the U.S., or the West in general, WikiLeaks is indifferent.”

Professor Richard Aldrich of Warwick University in central England said it had the potential to help militants find targets in energy security.

“We’re pointing out to them how they should change our behaviour to hurt us more,” he told Reuters.

“This document has been given very wide currency. It’s improbable to think that the terrorists are not taking notice.”

The cable sets out details of facilities whose loss could impact the public health, economic or national security of the United States. It was drawn up after the State Department last year asked U.S. missions abroad for a list of such sites.

It refers to places where undersea communications cables reach land and energy routes including the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline which runs from Azerbaijan to Turkey.

“While we’re not commenting on specific details in the stolen documents, a list of critical infrastructure would certainly fall into the category of damaging material that provides our adversaries with valuable information,” U.S. military spokesman Colonel David Lapan said.

“This is one of many reasons why we believe Wikileaks’ actions are irresponsible and dangerous,” Lapan said.

Additional reporting by William Maclean and Adrian Croft in London and Jeremy Pelofsky in Washington; Editing by Maria Golovnina and Paul Simao