As Wikileaks prepares to expose a huge cache of classified diplomatic communications, the US has warned allies that new revelations may lead to public embarrassment. The cables are expected to expose sensitive foreign policy issues including corruption allegations against foreign governments and leaders, and clandestine US support for terrorism. The leak is expected to contain seven times more data than the infamous Iraq War Diaries released earlier this year.

In what appears to be a harm minimisation strategy the US government has embarked on an impressive briefing campaign, reaching out to allies across the world.

On Wednesday, State Department Spokesman Philip Crowley told AFP that the US was “gearing up for the worst-case scenario, that leaked cables will touch on a wide range of issues and countries” Yesterday in an email briefing Cowley admitted the State Department was practicing due diligence and “assessing the possible impact on our on-going diplomatic activity and notifying both Congress and other governments what may occur”.

The heart of this issue is the right of governments to keep secrets from their citizens. It has been widely acknowledged that the first two document dumps demonstrated overclassification, while the anodyne nature of many of the “secret” documents demonstrates the over-classification of sensitive material. Secrecy rather than transparency is the norm as the US — like most governments — attempts to keep any documents related to defence and diplomacy under wraps. But surely we are willing to acknowledge that our government has to keep secrets when it comes to foreign policy.

In its efforts to “manage” the release and ensure its views are represented in the ensuing debate, the US has been vocal. In an email the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs to the Senate and House Armed Services Committee Elizabeth King said: “State Department cables by their nature contain everyday analysis and candid assessments that any government engages in as part of effective foreign relations…. The publication of this classified information by WikiLeaks is an irresponsible attempt to wreak havoc … It potentially jeopardizes lives.”

And the US ambassador to Baghdad told reporters at an embassy briefing that “WikiLeaks are an absolutely awful impediment to my business, which is to be able to have discussions in confidence with people. I do not understand the motivation for releasing these documents. “They will not help, they will simply hurt our ability to do our work here.”

As news breaks that the UK government has issued a DA notice, effectively asking to be briefed by newspaper editors before any new revelations are published it worth noting that there is no obligation on media to comply. DA-notices point to a set of guidelines, agreed by the government departments and the media. In this case newspaper editors would speak to Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee prior to publication.

An interesting element to this story comes with the confirmation that US has also been briefing NGOs, alerting them to programmes that may be compromised in this new document dump.

Read more here

When it was discovered, in November last year, that I was the source of a series of Home Office leaks that caused considerable embarrassment to the government, the police didn’t waste any time. They arrived at my flat at dawn, searched me, confiscated many of my possessions and treated me in the same way as a terror suspect. Then the Home Office “advised” me in the strongest possible terms that I should wait out the weekend and the ensuing press frenzy in an RAF base. I did as I was told.

Supposedly, there were grave “security concerns” about me. This stemmed from the fact that I had leaked documents detailing the Home Office’s employment of illegal immigrants, the risk of rising racial tension due to the credit crunch and an explanation of the inordinate amount of time wasted on the counter-terrorism bill.

This week, the Commons Public Administration Select Committee (PASC), chaired by Tony Wright MP, released a report that looks at leaks and whistleblowing in Whitehall. Its recommendations are supposed to build a framework to provide an avenue of complaint for people who are moved, like I was, to let people know about improper governmental behaviour.

The report argues that whistleblowing damages trust within government. It also suggests, quite rightly, that investigations of whistleblowing are often politically motivated. The committee reasons that civil servants need an accessible and visible means to raise concerns about the conduct of government. The aim is to take the criminality out of whistleblowing, to create non-political commissioners who will investigate fairly and only prosecute if the Official Secrets Act is breached.

On the face of it, these proposals are good. Right now, as a civil servant, you have little recourse to raise issues in a safe and protected environment. This was one of my main concerns working at the Home Office at the time. I was aware of the correct procedure to approach my line manager, but I considered him a political appointee as he had previously worked for a well-known Labour Think Tank. This is one of the reasons for going outside to an independent organisation. If an independent structure had existed outside at the time that I observed malpractice at the Home Office, the civil service commissioners would have been my first port of call.

But Wright was clear, on BBC radio, that he does not aim to protect people like me. He claims I was politically motivated to embarrass his party and does not seem concerned that what I brought to light was unlawful misconduct on the government’s part. This raises the concern of whether civil service commissioners can be appointed who are neutral. Unlike Wright, they must have an independent background and motivation. After all, the inquiry he chaired was launched in the wake of a leak inquiry involving the investigation of myself and the Shadow Immigration Minister Damian Green MP, during which police searched Green’s office without a warrant. We were both arrested and the six-month-long inquiry culminated in the end of my civil service career, the loss of many friends and unemployment. I believe my actions to have been a public service and in the public interest and Wright’s desire not to protect others like me, who might embarrass Labour, casts doubt on the independence of his “commission”.

But even if the independence of the civil service commissioners can be guaranteed, this leads onto the next problem of what power they would hold. For example, the PASC report raises the issue of reporting ministers and special advisers if they mislead Parliament or the public. Yet many working in the Westminster bubble who have the chance to see such prima facie evidence maybe see little worth in reporting a minister. The current ministerial code of conduct has no real disciplinary procedure for “poor” or dishonest ministers. And the report fails to deal with the issue of party-motivated leaks by special advisers, who often pass embargoed information on to the press to get a headline and avoid any consequences as a result of their ministerial patronage. Such people are not going to go through an independent commission but they still get away with compromising the civil service’s neutrality.

Finally, there is the issue of keeping every civil servant informed about the correct procedure for whistleblowing. The PASC report suggests that this should come from the Cabinet Office and the permanent secretaries, but I consider both to be too close to whoever holds the key to No 10. The only organisations that can perform this on a mass scale, and with the trust of civil servants, are the unions in the civil service as a semi-independent body, which could be keeping potential whistle blowers informed of the correct avenues. This is due to the fact that individual civil servants actually pay towards the upkeep of union branches, and, unlike the centralised staff welfare services, they have the financial incentive to protect civil servants.

Ultimately, the PASC report will benefit civil servants who have a moral conscience, but there are too few of these potential whistleblowers because the consequences are too grave. I am now lucky to be working at the Sunlight Centre for Open Politics, a group focused on uncovering corruption in government, and I don’t believe that PASC’s reforms will help our work very much. I still believe that the majority of leaks will come from ministers or special advisers wishing to score political points against opposing parties and that, as Wright has said he desires, independent whistleblowers like myself, who are further down the hierarchy, won’t be protected. They will have reason to distrust the “independence” of his commissioners. Only if leak investigations are taken entirely out of the political realm, and conducted robustly, will the culture of ministerial patronage and criminalisation of genuine whistleblowers change.

Atif Amin, a British customs investigator, was arrested and had his house searched over allegations that he passed classified information to the authors of a book about Pakistan’s development and export of nuclear technology. A year into the IPCC’s investigation, there are signs that the case will come to a head next month.

The case centres on America and the Islamic Bomb by US investigative journalists Joseph Trento and David Armstrong. The book, published in October 2007, alleges that for years the West ignored Pakistan’s involvement in proliferation. It includes the story of Amin, who in 2000 tracked the unlicensed export of proliferation-sensitive high-tensile aluminium to Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. There he uncovered part of the network of AQ Khan, ‘father of the Pakistani bomb’ and international nuclear trader.

Amin found evidence of shipments of nuclear technology from Pakistan to Libya, which at the time had a covert nuclear programme. But he was warned off the case by Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, which was tracking the Khan network with the CIA. Khan’s operation was allowed to run for another three years. It was shut down after another nuclear-related shipment was intercepted on its way to Libya in October 2003, following a tip off from a CIA mole within the network.

The seizure also led Libyan leader Colonel Qaddafi to admit to and publicly renounce the country’s nuclear programme. But many experts have questioned the value of this delay, during which the Khan network is believed to have supplied Iran with material and technology for its nuclear programme.

After Trento and Armstrong’s book was published, Amin gave an interview telling his story to NBC News. He then became the subject of a criminal investigation himself, when HM Revenue and Customs made a complaint to the IPCC about a suspected breach of the Official Secrets Act. He was arrested and interviewed under caution and his home was searched by police and IPCC investigators.

At this point Trento contacted the IPCC, making it clear that Amin was not the source for his book. He asked: ‘Why have you accused this guy?’ He received no response but IPCC investigators later flew to Washington seeking to interview him. Having taken legal advice, Trento declined.

Trento is still furious about the way Amin, whom he has described as a ‘real life hero’, has been treated. He told me: ‘The entire episode is absurd. An innocent person is in the dock. I never met him until after the book was published.’

Although the investigation and search of Amin’s home was briefly reported in the UK media at the time, the case has received virtually no publicity since. Trento and Armstrong contacted the BBC, which decided not to follow up the story after Amin’s lawyer told them he could not comment because of the ongoing investigation.

With suggestions that the case will soon come to a conclusion, IPCC investigators have recently contacted the BBC, seeking details of its journalists’ contacts with the authors. I understand that their enquiries have been referred to the BBC’s legal department.

The case –– and the attempts to prise information from journalists –– raises questions about the role of the IPCC, which was set up to handle complaints against the police. A BBC source said:

‘I thought the IPCC was supposed to shine a light into dark corners –– one of the safeguards against Britain becoming an unaccountable police state. Yet here they are persecuting a whistleblower about the security services.’

An IPCC spokesperson told me: ‘The IPCC can confirm that a HM Revenue and Customs officer has been interviewed under caution as part of an on-going inquiry into a potential breach of the Official Secrets Act. He has been rebailed until 14 January 2009 and the inquiry continues. HMRC used their powers to refer the suspected breach of the Official Secrets Act to the IPCC. There does not need to be a public complaint.’

But a spokesperson later added: ‘The Commission agreed to carry out an investigation. As ever, it will be independent, impartial but thorough’, illustrating that the IPCC was not obliged to accept the referral from HMRC. The spokesperson declined to comment on the investigation itself or on the costs incurred.

Amin’s solicitor, John Harding of Kingsley Napley, also declined to comment because of the ongoing criminal investigation. But no-one who has spoken about the case thinks it will go very far, and none think this type of investigation is what the IPCC is for.