Tuesday, 28 December 2010

us t-bonds $315bn: ‘ndrangheta, mistero e segreto

through: http://www.radicali.it/rassegna-stampa/sul-bond-di-sukarno-mano-alla-ndrangheta-ancora-mistero

Sul bond di Sukarno in mano alla ‘ndrangheta è ancora mistero

Milano Finanza, il 28/12/10

Dopo il mistero dei T-bond falsi (almeno così sembra) un altro certificato, per così dire, vintage, sta facendo sudare gli inquirenti. I T-bond sequestrati a più riprese alle frontiere italiane nel 2009 (in due mesi sono stati bloccati titoli, poi risultati falsi, per 315 miliardi di dollari), riguardavano emissioni effettuate negli anni della presidenza Kennedy. Sempre lo stesso anno, a settembre, la Guardia di Finanza di Locri ha però sequestrato un certificato di deposito del valore di quasi 1 miliardo di dollari americani emesso da Credit Suisse nel 1961 ed intestato all’ex dittatore indonesiano Sukarno, che stava per essere intascato dalla ‘ndrangheta. Un evento che a circa un anno di distanza rimane ancora avvolto nel mistero. A diradare la nebbia non è servita nemmeno un’interrogazione parlamentare presentata da deputati di maggioranza e opposizione, come Renato Farina (Pdl) e Marco Beltrandi (Radicali). I parlamentari si sono rivolti al ministero dell’Economia per sapere come sono andati effettivamente i fatti e per chiedere un intervento presso il governo degli Stati Uniti, che accerti l’eventuale autenticità del titolo. Ha risposto il sottosegretario Sonia Viale, ma solo per affermare che l’inchiesta non è ancora conclusa e che su tutti gli atti la magistratura ha posto il segreto. Resta quindi il mistero su questa proliferazione di titoli che rimandano agli anni della guerra fredda, e soprattutto sui canali che li conducono nella disponibilità delle organizzazioni criminali italiane. Il titolo sequestrato a Lodi, dal valore di 870 milioni di dollari, stava per essere negoziato da esponenti della ‘ndrangheta, e precisamente della famiglia di Taurianova Fazzalari-Viola-Avignone.

related posts:

italy: seized bonds could be real

italy: seized us bonds are fake

aggiornamento us bonds sequestrati

italian customs seize 134 billion $ us state bonds

Tuesday, 7 December 2010

wikileaks: sexfella? / zbigniew: manipulation


Wikileaks founder Julian Assange refused bail


The charges

  • Used his body weight to hold down Miss A in a sexual manner.
  • Had unprotected sex with Miss A when she had insisted on him using a condom.
  • Molested Miss A "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".
  • Had unprotected sex with Miss W while she was asleep.


The Wikileaks sex files: How two one-night stands sparked a worldwide hunt for Julian Assange

Richard Pendlebury
7th December 2010

A winter morning in backwoods Scandinavia and the chime of a church bell drifts across the snowbound town of Enkoping. Does it also toll for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange

Today, this small industrial centre, 40 miles west of Stockholm, remains best-known — if known at all — as the birthplace of the ­adjustable spanner.

But if extradition proceedings involving ­Britain are successful, it could soon be rather more celebrated — by the U.S. government at least — as the place where Mr Assange made a ­catastrophic error.

Victim of a honeytrap plot? Julian Assange denies the accusations of sex crimes, insisting he had consensual sex with his accusors

Victim of a honeytrap plot? Julian Assange denies the accusations of sex crimes, insisting he had consensual sex with his accusors

related posts:

pentagon adds wikileaks to list of enemies

soros & co back wikileaks / kosher mob & oval office

Here, in a first-floor flat in a dreary apartment block, the mastermind behind the leak of more than 250,000 classified U.S. diplomatic cables this month slept with a female admirer whom he had just met at a seminar. She subsequently made a complaint to police.

As a result, Assange, believed to be in hiding in England, faces a criminal prosecution and ­possibly jail. Last night, a European Arrest ­Warrant was given by Interpol to Scotland Yard.

The Stockholm police want to question him regarding the possible rape of a woman and separate allegations from another Swedish admirer, with whom he was having a concurrent fling. But there remains a huge question mark over the evidence. Many people believe that the 39-year-old ­Australian-born whistleblower is the victim of a U.S. government dirty tricks campaign.

They argue that the whole squalid affair is a sexfalla, which translates loosely from the Swedish as a ‘honeytrap’.

One thing is clear, though: Sweden’s complex rape laws are central to the story.

Using a number of sources including leaked police interviews, we can begin to piece together the sequence of events which led to Assange’s liberty being threatened by Stockholm police rather than Washington, where already one U.S. politician has called on him to executed for ‘spying’.

The story began on August 11 this year, when Assange arrived in Stockholm.

He had been invited to be the key speaker at a seminar on ‘war and the role of the media’, ­organised by the ­centre-Left Brotherhood Movement.

His point of contact was a female party official, whom we shall refer to as Sarah (her identity must be ­protected because of the ongoing legal proceedings).

An attractive blonde, Sarah was already a well-known ‘radical feminist’. In her 30s, she had travelled the world following various fashionable causes.

While a research assistant at a local university she had not only been the protegee of a militant feminist ­academic, but held the post of ‘campus sexual equity officer’. Fighting male discrimination in all forms, including sexual harassment, was her forte.

Sarah and Assange had never met. But in a series of internet and telephone conversations, they agreed that during his visit he could stay at her small apartment in central Stockholm. She said she would be away from the city until the day of the seminar itself.

What happened over the next few days — while casting an extraordinary light on the values of the two women involved — suggests that even if the WikiLeaks founder is innocent of any charges, he is certainly a man of strong sexual appetites who is not averse to exploiting his fame.

Certainly his stay was always going to be a very social affair, mingling with like-minded and undoubtedly ­admiring people.

That Thursday, he held court at the Beirut Cafe in Stockholm, dining with fellow ‘open government’ campaigners and an American journalist.

The following afternoon, Sarah returned to Stockholm, 24 hours earlier than planned.

In an interview she later gave to police, she is reported to have said: ‘He (Assange) was there when I came home. We talked a little and decided that he could stay.’

The pair went out for dinner together at a nearby restaurant. Afterwards they returned to her flat and had sex. What is not disputed by either of them is t hat a condom broke — an event which, as we shall see, would later take on great significance.

At the time, however, the pair ­continued to be friendly enough the next day, a Saturday, with Sarah even throwing a party for him at her home in the evening.

That same day, Assange attended his seminar at the Swedish trade union HQ. In the front row of the audience, dressed in an eye-catching pink jumper — you can see her on a YouTube ­internet clip recorded at the time — was a pretty twentysomething whom we shall call Jessica. She was the woman — who two sources this week told me is a council employee — from Enkoping.

Jessica would later tell police that she had first seen Assange on television a few weeks before. She had found him ‘interesting, brave and admirable’. As a result, she began to follow the ­WikiLeaks saga, and when she discovered that he was due to visit Stockholm she ­contacted the Brotherhood Movement to volunteer to help out at the seminar. Although her offer was not taken up, she decided to attend the seminar anyway and took a large number of photos of Assange during his 90-minute talk.

It is believed that by happenstance Jessica also met Sarah — the woman with whom Assange had spent the night — during the meeting.

Afterwards, she hung around and was still there when Assange — who has a child from a failed relationship around 20 years ago — left with a group of male friends for lunch.

Sources conflict here. One says that she asked to tag along; another that Assange invited her to join them.

Subsequently, one of Assange’s friends recalled that Jessica had been ‘very keen’ to get Assange’s attention.

She was later to tell police that, at the restaurant, Assange put his arm around her shoulder. ‘I was flattered. It was obvious that he was flirting,’ she reportedly said.

The attraction was mutual. After lunch, the pair went to the cinema to see a film called Deep Sea. Jessica’s account suggests that were ‘intimate’ and then went to a park where Assange told her she was ‘attractive’.

But he had to leave to go to a ‘crayfish party’, a traditional, and usually boozy, Swedish summer event.

Jessica asked if they would meet again. ‘Of course,’ said the WikiLeaks supremo. They parted and she took a train back to Enkoping while he took a cab back to his temporary base at Sarah’s flat, where the crayfish party was to be held. You might think it strange that Sarah would want to throw a party in honour of the man about whom she would later make a complaint to police concerning their liaison the night before.

This is only one of several puzzling flaws in the prosecution case.

A few hours after that party, Sarah apparently Tweeted: ‘Sitting outside ... nearly freezing, with the world’s coolest people. It’s pretty amazing!’ She was later to try to erase this message.

During the party, Assange apparently phoned Jessica and a few hours later she was boasting to friends about her flirtation with him. At that point, according to police reports, her friends advised her ‘the ball is in your court’.

So it was that on the Monday, Jessica called Assange and they arranged to get together in Stockholm. When they did meet they agreed to go to her home in Enkoping, but he had no money for a train ticket and said he didn’t want to use a credit card because he would be ‘tracked’ (presumably, as he saw it, by the CIA or other agencies).

So Jessica bought both their tickets.

She had snagged perhaps the world’s most famous activist, and after they arrived at her apartment they had sex. According to her testimony to police, Assange wore a condom. The following morning they made love again. This time he used no protection.

Jessica reportedly said later that she was upset that he had refused when she asked him to wear a condom.

Again there is scant evidence — in the public domain at least — of rape, sexual molestation or unlawful coercion.

What’s more, the following morning, on the Tuesday, the pair amicably went out to have breakfast together and, at her prompting, Assange promised to stay in touch. He then returned to Stockholm, with Jessica again paying for his ticket.

What happened next is difficult to explain. The most likely interpretation of events is that as a result of a one-night stand, one participant came to regret what had happened.

Jessica was worried she could have caught a sexual disease, or even be pregnant: and this is where the story takes an intriguing turn. She then decided to phone Sarah — whom she had met at the ­seminar, and with whom Assange had been staying — and apparently confided to her that she’d had unprotected sex with him.

At that point, Sarah said that she, too, had slept with him.

As a result of this conversation, Sarah reportedly phoned an acquaintance of Assange and said that she wanted him to leave her apartment. (He refused to do so, and maintains that she only asked him to leave three days later, on the Friday of that week.)

How must Sarah have felt to ­discover that the man she’d taken to her bed three days before had already taken up with another woman? ­Furious? Jealous? Out for revenge? Perhaps she merely felt aggrieved for a fellow woman in distress.

Having taken stock of their options for a day or so, on Friday, August 20, Sarah and Jessica took drastic action.

They went together to a Stockholm police station where they said they were seeking advice on how to proceed with a complaint by Jessica against Assange.

According to one source, Jessica wanted to know if it was possible to force Assange to undergo an HIV test. Sarah, the seasoned feminist warrior, said she was there merely to support Jessica. But she also gave police an account of what had happened between herself and Assange a week before.

The female interviewing officer, presumably because of allegations of a sabotaged condom in one case and a refusal to wear one in the ­second, concluded that both women were victims: that ­Jessica had been raped, and Sarah subject to sexual molestation.

It was Friday evening. A duty prosecuting attorney, Maria ­Kjellstrand, was called.

She agreed that Assange should be sought on suspicion of rape.

The following day, Sarah was questioned again, cementing the allegation of sexual misconduct against Assange. That evening, detectives tried to find him and searched Stockholm’s entertainment district — but to no avail.

By Sunday morning, the news had leaked to the Press.

Indeed, it has been suggested that the two women had discussed approaching a tabloid newspaper to maximise Assange’s discomfort. By now, the authorities realised they had a high-profile case on their hands and legal papers were rushed to the weekend home of the chief ­prosecutor, who dismissed the rape charge.

She felt that what had occurred were no more than minor offences.

But the case was now starting to spin out of control.

Sarah next spoke to a newspaper, saying: ‘In both cases, the sex had been consensual from the start but had eventually turned into abuse.’

Rejecting accusations of an international plot to trap Assange, she added: ‘The accusations were not set up by the Pentagon or anybody else. The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl lies with a man with a twisted view of women, who has a problem accepting the word “no”.’

The two women then instructed Claes Borgstrom, a so-called ‘gender lawyer’ who is a leading supporter of a campaign to extend the legal ­definition of rape to help bring more rapists to justice.

As a result, in September the case was reopened by the authorities, and last month Interpol said Assange was wanted for ‘sex crimes’.

Yesterday, his lawyer Mark Stephens said the Swedish warrant was a ‘political stunt’ and that he would fight it on the grounds that it could lead to the WikiLeaks founder being handed over to the American authorities (Sweden has an ­extradition treaty with the U.S.).

Assange continues to insist that he has done nothing wrong, and that his sexual encounters with both women were consensual.

But last week, the Swedish High Court refused to hear his final appeal against arrest, and extra­dition papers were presented to police in England, where Assange is currently in hiding. He is able to stay in this country thanks to a six-month visa which expires in the spring.

So what to make of a story in which it’s hard to argue that any of the ­parties emerges with much credit? How reliable are the two female witnesses?

Earlier this year, Sarah is reported to have posted a telling entry on her website, which she has since removed. But a copy has been retrieved and widely circulated on the internet.

Entitled ‘7 Steps to Legal Revenge’, it explains how women can use courts to get their own back on unfaithful lovers.

Step 7 says: ‘Go to it and keep your goal in sight. Make sure your victim suffers just as you did.’ (The highlighting of text is Sarah’s own.)

As for Assange, he remains in ­hiding in Britain, and his website continues to release classified American documents that are ­daily embarrassing the U.S. government.

Clearly, he is responsible for an avalanche of political leaks. Whether he is also guilty of sexual offences remains to be seen.

But the more one learns about the case, the more one feels that, unlike the bell in Enkoping, the allegations simply don’t ring true.




December 1, 2010


Gordon Duff STAFF WRITER/Senior Editor

This week, Judy Woodruff of PBS interviewed Zbigniew Brzezinski and Stephen Hadley, former national security advisers for presidents Carter and Bush. The subject of the interview was Wikileaks.

Such interviews seldom reveal much, though Brzezinski is one of the most controversial figures of our times, tied to endless conspiracies and rumored to head many of the secret societies tasked with maintaining the New World Order. The interview is available in full at PBS. For the most part, Hadley offers little or nothing of substance, much as when he served as national security adviser to President George W. Bush. Brzezinski, however, is another beast entirely.

The interview is edited, with little exception, as monologue by Brzezinski.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: But I think the most serious issues are not those which are getting the headlines right now. Who cares if Berlusconi is described as a clown. Most Italians agree with that. Who cares if Putin is described as an alpha dog? He probably is flattered by it.

The real issue is, who is feeding Wikipedia on this issue — Wiki — Wiki — WikiLeaks on this issue? They’re getting a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of it seems surprisingly pointed. …The very pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective undermining their political credibility at home, because this kind of public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually play against them at home.

Editor’s note: The use of the term, “pointed” is key. This indicates two classes of information and also begins building a hypothesis to support “intent.” If there is “intent” in the leaks, then they are an intelligence operation, not a leak.

It’s, rather, a question of whether WikiLeaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments, because some of these items that are being emphasized and have surfaced are very pointed.

And I wonder whether, in fact, there aren’t some operations internationally, intelligence services, that are feeding stuff to WikiLeaks, because it is a unique opportunity to embarrass us, to embarrass our position, but also to undermine our relations with particular governments.

Editor’s note: Brzezinsky goes exactly there, indicating his belief that Wikileaks is tied to an intelligence agency. This is a full and direct challenge to the credibility of wikileaks showing no reservations whatsoever.

For example, leaving aside the personal gossip about Sarkozy or Berlusconi or Putin, the business about the Turks is clearly calculated in terms of its potential impact on disrupting the American-Turkish relationship….the top leaders, Erdogan and Davutoglu and so forth, are using some really, really, very sharp language.

JUDY WOODRUFF: But this is 250 — it’s a quarter-of-a-million documents.


JUDY WOODRUFF: How easy would it be to seed this to make sure that it was slanted a certain way?

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: Seeding — seeding it is very easy. I have no doubt that WikiLeaks is getting a lot of the stuff from sort of relatively unimportant sources, like the one that perhaps is identified on the air. But it may be getting stuff at the same time from interested intelligence parties who want to manipulate the process and achieve certain very specific objectives.

Editor’s note: Brzezinski’s assertion is that “chickenfeed,” things off the news, low level “junk” intel is being “seeded” by an intelligence service to serve an agenda with “very specific objectives.” Can anything be more clear?

STEPHEN HADLEY : The — what we know or what has been said publicly is it looks like a data dump through a pretty junior-level person. So, in terms of that material, it looks like a data dump. Generally, in Washington, I have had the rule that, if there are two explanations, one is conspiracy and one is incompetence, you ought to go with incompetence. You will be right 90 percent of the time.

Editor’s note: The Obama administration withdrew the AIPAC spying convictions when it was clear that Stephen Hadley would be put on the stand by the defense. Hadley’s very close relationship with the defendants in this spy trial brings up a number of interesting questions which are not hard to answer if you read his response above.

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: But, Steve, the other foreign intelligence services don’t have to wait for me to make that suggestion. I think they can think of it themselves, particularly after the first instance.


Brzeznski is, by a mile, the tough guy in Washington, the best informed and the last person anyone wants to cross. There is little question of this. What ever is said, he is also someone who always knows what is going on and, though careful with his words, simply doesn’t bother kissing up to special interest in a humiliating way like some others.

There are many ways this interview can be read but only one meaning can be gotten from what was clearly said. Brzeznski, based on his analysis, is absolutely certain that Wikileaks is an intelligence operation and not, in any way, what it is said to be in the press.

PBS and Judy Woodruff carefully avoided any speculation about Israel but any examination of this set of documents and earlier “leaks,” if we can call them that, and we really can’t, leave little doubt about which country and which intelligence organization he is referring to.

related post:

brzezinski: us should protect iran from israeli raids

Thursday, 2 December 2010

wikileaks profits to israel


Analysis: Wikileaks vindicate, don’t damage, Israel


The US is clearly listening to what Middle Eastern leaders have to say about Iran - now what are they going to do about it?

Based on the trove of diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks on Sunday, the United States is clearly listening to and recording what Middle Eastern leaders have to say about Iran. The question left unanswered is what the US is willing to do about it.

For years now, top Israeli political and defense leaders have warned the world that a nuclear Iran is not just a threat to the Jewish state but is a threat to the entire region.

“If only we could say publicly what we hear behind closed doors,” Israeli officials would comment, following off-record talks they held with Arab leaders throughout the Middle East.

Well, now they can. According to one cable published by WikiLeaks on Sunday, Saudi King Abdullah “frequently exhorted the US to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons program” and to cut off the head of the snake.

According to another cable, King Hamad of Bahrain, a country with a majority Shi’ite population, urged in a meeting with former CENTCOM commander Gen.

David Petraeus that action be taken to terminate Iran’s nuclear program.

“That program must be stopped,” Hamad said, according to the cable. “The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it.”

Jordan, another country that voiced concern, is uncomfortable with the possibility that a nuclear Iran would provide an umbrella for opposition groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt is also challenged by Iran’s continued nuclear development, as shown by the conviction in April of 26 men who were spying for Hizbullah and plotting attacks in Egypt.

From an Israeli perspective, therefore, it would not be an exaggeration to say that WikiLeaks may have done the country a service on Sunday. By presenting the Arab leaders as more extreme in their remarks than Israeli leaders, the cables show the dissonance in the region and the danger involved in allowing Iran to continue with its nuclear program.

While there were some comments made by Mossad director Meir Dagan regarding leaders in the Middle East – the emir of Qatar is “annoying,” and the king of Morocco is not interested in governing – that are slightly embarrassing, Israeli politicians were spared the more embarrassing analyses of their personalities that French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi received.

The information revealed in the cables is vast and informative, providing an unprecedented insight into the way some of Israel’s top intelligence officials and politicians view the region and its challenges.

Dagan, for example, comes out looking much more than just the head of a spy agency, and according to the cables, is sought after by almost every senior US official visiting Israel. In one cable he met with a Homeland Security official, in another with the undersecretary of state. In another he met with officials from the Treasury Department and in another, Mossad officials met with US military officers.

In general and contrary to earlier predictions, the cables did not appear to contain information that could significantly harm Israeli national security.

Most Israeli officials, such as Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Dagan and Military Intelligence chief Maj.-Gen.

Amos Yadlin, appear to be careful in what they say in the meetings, which are clearly being documented by American aides in the room. In one cable, while Yadlin said that covert means needed to be used to stop Iran, he was quoted as refusing to elaborate.

At the end of the day, though, none of this has changed the state of affairs regarding global efforts to stop Iran. While the UN has ratcheted up sanctions and the US is threatening more and tougher ones, the Teheran regime is continuing to defy the international community and to enrich uranium, making it today just a jump away from creating a nuclear weapon whenever it wants.


Is Wikileaks a front for the CIA or Mossad?

Richard Spencer
November 29th, 2010

Wikileaks, according to every news agency, newspaper and television station across the world, is a huge embarrassment, a disaster for the United States.

You will therefore be surprised to learn that Wikileaks is in fact a US-front organisation, or at the very least a Mossad operation. It is intent on undermining peace in the Middle East, and discrediting the region’s leaders and Iran in particular.

That, at least, was the view of an Iranian analyst interviewed just now on al-Jazeera. The Wikileaks disclosures should be seen, he said, in light of the battle for power between the Republican and Democratic “factions” in the US regime.

All bizarre and nonsensical conspiracy theory of course.


Well, I don’t buy the conspiracy theory. But one thing’s for sure – the leaks reflect far worse on Middle Eastern regimes, including but not only Iran, than on the United States.

Leaving aside the “Bomb bomb bomb Iran” stuff, what for example will President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen say to his people now he has been clearly revealed to have got the US to lie on his behalf (not that it wasn’t common knowledge)?

As I have just said in an online commentary, the disclosures, based as they are on diplomatic cables, set out extremely clearly the thinking underlying US government policy – including rationales that cannot usually be given publicly for fear of offending allies or revealing secrets. Their partiality might be questioned – but their coherence can’t.

Ultimately, they put the onus on Middle Eastern countries to explain themselves. The cables are America’s own explanations. Neither Iran nor many of its Arab friends and enemies like being held to account overmuch.

Now they have been. No wonder Iran thinks it’s a plot; I wonder if other countries agree. I wouldn’t be surprised.

related posts:

pentagon adds wikileaks to list of enemies

soros & co back wikileaks / kosher mob & oval office


1 December 2010

Wikileaks US cables: Pakistan rejects nuclear arms fear

Pakistan has dismissed fears expressed in US diplomatic cables, released by whistle-blower website Wikileaks, that its nuclear material could fall into the hands of terrorists.

High Commissioner to the UK Wajid Shamsul Hasan said the material had a "foolproof control and command system".

The cables warn Pakistan is rapidly building its nuclear stockpile despite the country's growing instability.

There is also scepticism about whether Pakistan could cut links to militants.

Separately, Interpol has issued a notice asking for information on the whereabouts of Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange.

'Sovereign nation'

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Hasan said the fears expressed in the cables came "off and on" but added: "We have always been telling them straight forward that [the nuclear weapons] are in secure hands, they don't have to worry about it and we will protect them.

"They are the dearest assets that we have and we'll not allow anything to fall into any adventurer's hands."


In domestic political terms, some of the most damaging material may be about the Pakistan government's stance on the controversial CIA drone programme, targeting militants in the tribal belt.

In public, officials oppose the drone strikes which have killed hundreds - including an unknown number of innocent civilians.

In private, it's a different story, according to a cable from US ambassador Anne Patterson. It says Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani had no objections to a planned drone attack.

"I don't care if they do it, as long as they get the right people," he said. "We'll protest in the National Assembly (parliament) and then ignore it."

In one of the latest cables to be released by Wikileaks, senior UK Foreign Office official Mariot Leslie told US diplomats in September 2009 that Britain had "deep concerns about the safety and security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons".

In another cable seven months earlier, then-US ambassador Anne Patterson told Washington: "Our major concern is not having an Islamic militant steal an entire weapon but rather the chance someone working in the government of Pakistan facilities could gradually smuggle enough material out to eventually make a weapon."

Another cable concerning a US intelligence briefing in 2008 said: "Despite pending economic catastrophe, Pakistan is producing nuclear weapons at a faster rate than any other country in the world."

Mr Hasan said that since the government of President Asif Ali Zardari had come to power 27 months ago "we have had a very successful, foolproof control and command system looking after the nuclear arsenal".

Mr Hasan admitted the leaks were harmful.

"You are dealing with the relationship with states. You have built them over the years and all of a sudden something gets out - it's top secret, it's classified, it harms the relationship," he said.

Mr Hasan also said Pakistan would not accept any US help on nuclear security "because we are a sovereign nation".

In the leaked material Ms Patterson also said there was "no chance" of Pakistan "abandoning support for [militant] groups".

The Pakistan government, she added, saw militant groups "as an important part of its national security apparatus against India".

Asif Ali Zardari, file pic The cables question Mr Zardari's relationship with the military

The US also expressed concern about tensions between the powerful Pakistani army and Mr Zardari.

In material from March 2009, US cables noted that army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani might "however reluctantly" put pressure on President Zardari to step down, although he "distrusted [opposition leader] Nawaz [Sharif] even more".

The BBC's Aleem Maqbool in Islamabad says military officials here believe the Wikileaks disclosures are being used as a stick with which to bully Pakistan into giving up its nuclear programme.

But he says there are many observers who will see the concerns raised as valid, particularly considering the tens of thousands of people in Pakistan whose work is connected to the nuclear programme.

US State Department spokesman PJ Crowley told BBC World News on Wednesday that Pakistan should take further action against militant groups.

"We have seen aggressive action by the Pakistani government and we have also made clear to Pakistan that it has to make sure that whatever relationship has existed in the past, they need to sever these kinds of relationships and continue to take aggressive action," he said.

'Red Notice'

The US has condemned the Wikileaks disclosures, published by the UK Guardian newspaper, as an attack on the world community.

The Main Leaks So Far

  • Several Arab leaders urged attack on Iran over nuclear issue
  • US instructs spying on key UN officials
  • China's changing relationship with North Korea
  • Yemen approved US strikes on militants
  • Personal and embarrassing comments on world leaders
  • Fears over Pakistan's nuclear programme
  • Afghan leader Hamid Karzai freed dangerous detainees

On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is in Kazakhstan for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) summit, said she had raised the issue with the leaders she had met and none had expressed any concerns about continuing diplomatic work with the US.

The communications between the US State Department and its embassies and consulates around the world were sent between 1966 and 2010.

Wikileaks has so far posted only 486 of the 251,287 messages it says it has obtained. However, all of the messages have been made available to five publications, including the New York Times and the Guardian.

No-one has been charged with passing them to Wikileaks, but suspicion has fallen on US Army Private Bradley Manning, an intelligence analyst arrested in Iraq in June and charged over an earlier leak of a classified video.

The cables release is the third mass Wikileaks publication of classified documents; it published 77,000 secret US files on the Afghan conflict in July, and 400,000 documents about the Iraq war in October.

Meanwhile, Interpol has issued a "Red Notice" asking people to contact the police if they have any information about Mr Assange's whereabouts.

It said the Australian was wanted for questioning in Sweden over an alleged sex offence, which he has denied.


Former Pakistani General: CIA, Mossad behind WikiLeaks Reports

TEHRAN (FNA)- A former Pakistani army commander said that the disclosure of classified documents by the whistleblower site of Wikileaks is a US plot to create rift among friendly and neighboring states.

"The US has a hand in this plot, and these reports (posted by the WikiLeaks website) are part of the US psychological warfare," former Chief of the Staff of the Pakistani Army General Mirza Aslam Beg told FNA in Islamabad on Tuesday.

He stated that the US could prevent the leak of information if it wanted to do so, and warned that the real plot and conspiracy pursued by these reports will be unraveled in future.

Aslam Beg further reiterated that the CIA and Israel's spy agency Mossad have launched efforts to weaken and destabilize Pakistan, and WikiLeaks reports are part of these efforts.

The remarks by the Pakistani figure came after US embassy cables posted by WikiLeaks website sparked hot reactions in the region.

In one cable, the WikiLeaks claimed, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, a close ally of Pakistan, reportedly called Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari the main cause of his country's woes.

Pakistani President's office responded on Monday that the leaks were "no more than an attempt to create misperceptions between two important and brotherly Muslim countries".